End of the road for that SFO shuttle

After raising the SFO surcharge from $1.50 to $4.00 last year, SFO and BART finally came to an agreement (with lots of horse trading over ad revenue and so forth) to revert the surcharge for airport employees, and that the employee shuttle between Millbrae and SFO would be eliminated.

Rising that surcharge for employees was a terrible idea in the first place. The airport has many blue-collar jobs and most of the current round trip fares on BART exceed their hourly wages.

However, eliminating the shuttle will increase expenses for employees. Even before BART raised the surcharge, the fares at SFO have always been higher than the fare at Millbrae. For the employees who take SamTrans buses on El Camino or Caltrain, that means no more free rides.

Of course those who got impacted the most are travelers taking Caltrain to SFO. Without that shuttle, they would have to pay the $4.00 fare with a confusing transfer in San Bruno. A decade ago, BART promised a free transfer for Caltrain riders because the extension would replace a free shuttle.

Even without the employee shuttle, Caltrain riders can still boycott the ridiculous $4.00 fare just to get between Millbrae and SFO. Here's how:

- From any station between Palo Alto and Hillsdale, just skip Caltrain entirely and take the SamTrans KX. SamTrans only charges $2.00 and KX stops by (on El Camino) many of the Caltrain stations between Palo Alto and Hillsdale. The northbound bus stop at Hillsdale is located a block south on El Camino and 37th Avenue.

- From Hayward Park, San Mateo, Burlingame, and Broadway station, skip Caltrain and take the SamTrans 292. Again it charges $2.00 and the bus picks up by many of the above stations.

- From further south, you can take Caltrain to Burlingame station and transfer to SamTrans 292. The northbound bus stop is located on California Drive and Howard Avenue, a block from the Caltrain station. From the station, just walk south to Howard Avenue and turn west to California Drive.

The timings between Caltrain and 292 work out some of the time. Before Caltrain and SamTrans slashed their services last year, it was possible to take Caltrain and transfer to the KX.

A better solution (and the best boycott against BART and SFO) is to use San Jose Airport. VTA and San Jose Airport still offer a direct, frequent, and free service to connect Caltrain and the light rail to the airport. The only downside is that San Jose Airport doesn't offer as much international flights or direct flights to big cities.

You can thank Quentin Kopp (former state senator and now HSR boardmember) for the mess at SFO. Back in the 90s, he lobbied for the current BART alignment at SFO knowing that it will drive up operating costs and make transfers (BART to Caltrain, and Caltrain to SFO) inconvenient. Last year, he was at it again by trying to prevent HSR from getting to Downtown San Francisco by throwing roadblocks at the Transbay Terminal project. Two weeks ago, when HSRA staff told him that his trojan horse alternative was considered infeasible, he casted the only no vote on the HSR alternative analysis for the Peninsula corridor. He was and still is an enemy to Caltrain riders. The sooner he becomes irrelevant, the better off we are.

SamTrans obituaries: 342, DX, FX, MX, NX, PX, RX

There are plenty of obituaries for Muni routes that were discontinued on December 5, when service changes took effect in San Francisco. SamTrans routes that are scheduled to be eliminated this Sunday should be recognized as well. Because all of the routes slated to be cut only run on weekdays, this Friday will be the last day.

342 - Before 1999, 342 used to be lines 33B and 33C. Since then. service used to be every 30 minutes with service in two directions. Later cuts reduced service to one direction every hour. Ridership was never high and SamTrans wasn't able to boost ridership significantly after the opening of the BART station in Millbrae.

DX - Used to be 1F before 1999. It brought commuters from Pacifica to San Francisco. Bus riders in the area prefer a one-seat ride rather than a slower and more expensive transfer to BART. Express bus from Pacifica to Colma will still be available as line 118 (formerly CX). If you refuse to ride BART because of financial or other reasons, it is possible to ride 118 to Colma and transfer to line 391 to San Francisco. The fares will be lower but the ride will take longer.

FX - Used to be 47F, 48F, and 49F, which have different alignments in Foster City before 1999. It brought commuters from Foster City to San Francisco, which unlike other routes, actually stops north of Market Street. SamTrans decided to cut the route anyway despite the fact that it is the most productive among the express bus routes and that Foster City is not served by BART or Caltrain. In an attempt to reduce the impact, SamTrans instead will institute line 359, which follows the same alignment in Foster City but will go to Millbrae station. Passengers from there on will have to transfer to either BART or Caltrain.

SamTrans thinks it will save the agency money, but riders that switch from FX to 359 probably will contribute almost no revenue to SamTrans. Currently, FX riders pay $144 for a monthly pass. If they switch to BART, they can ride SamTrans free with BART Plus tickets ($21-23 more per half month). If they switch to Caltrain, they can ride SamTrans free with Caltrain monthly pass two zones or more ($112.75).

MX - Used to be 19F. SamTrans consultants recommended to cut the route 10 years ago citing competition with Caltrain and now BART.

NX - Used to be 41F. SamTrans consultants recommended to cut the route 10 years ago. Redwood Shore, like Foster City, is not served by either BART or Caltrain. If SamTrans had the planning foresight, it could've provided reverse commute service (similar to what Bauers is doing now in other areas) for San Francisco employees who work at Oracle and other Redwood Shores businesses.

PX - Used to be 18F. SamTrans consultants recommended to cut the route 10 years ago citing Caltrain competition. Caltrain does provide faster and cheaper service... except that you have to pay more to transfer to Muni to get to downtown. Direct bus service will still be available on the KX, but the bus has to loop by SFO terminals and will run hourly on December 20.

RX - Used to be 17F. SamTrans consultants recommended to cut the route 10 years ago. The bus had three round trips in 1999. Now it only has one round trip. Direct bus service will still be available on the KX, but will be slower and less frequent.

The express buses were essential at a time when BART was terminating in Daly City and Caltrain (which at the time was funded by the state) was providing less frequent service. Express service begin to decline in the 90s after SamTrans committed to extend BART to SFO and to financially support Caltrain. Despite the completion of BART to SFO, SamTrans maintained express bus service over the years because of advocacy from long time bus riders, which contrary to popular beliefs, know that rail is not necessarily superior.

Unfortunately, unlike VTA, SamTrans does not have full information about its productivity and ridership on its buses. Financial pressures at SamTrans and Caltrain, as well as political pressures from folks at the pro-rail MTC, forced SamTrans to make mostly a political decision to give up the commuter market. While service could be restored on other routes currently slated for service reduction once economic condition improves, it is really the end of the line for these express bus routes. Why would SamTrans restore commuter buses again after it had kicked all of its remaining bus riders onto slower buses, BART, Caltrain, and even their cars? MTC would see this as taking riders and revenue away from BART and Caltrain, which is a political no-no.

FYI: VTA lately is allowing commercial ads on its light rail exterior.

Around the Bay

No end in sight

The poor economy is hitting transit agencies in two different ways:

1. Declining tax revenue forces agencies to cut back service

2. Less service, higher fares and high unemployment kept riders away

Just a year ago most transit agencies saw record ridership as the gasoline prices continued to soar. This year, financial and economic pressures resulted in ridership decline. In June 2008, Caltrain had a ridership increase of more than 16% compared to 2007. This year, Caltrain lost 11.7% riders compared to 2008. Overall, Caltrain still gained ridership from 2007.

SFO shuttle

Earlier this month, BART imposed a $4 surcharge on all riders entering and and exiting the SFO station, including airport employees. While the surcharge still make BART competitive to driving and parking at the airport or taking a taxi or airport shuttle, that $4 surcharge is a significant financial hit to employees at the airport, especially those who do not work for the airlines.

The SFO did one right thing in response: operate a free shuttle between the airport and Millbrae station. Although the shuttle may look silly and adds travel time for those transferring to and from BART, it helps to cut down fares as much as in half. For those who transfer to and from Caltrain, the shuttle avoids an even sillier transfer at the San Bruno station between two BART trains, which isn't worth the $4 fare, or even the old $1.50 fare.

Although the shuttle is intended for employees, there's no restriction for other riders from using this service. As long as BART refuses to waive the surcharge for SFO's employees, you can try this shuttle.

No cell phones for transit operators

Recently, yellow stickers are appearing inside VTA buses over the driver's area. These yellow stickers remind drivers not to talk on cell phones (including hands free) or text while driving. Some agencies apparently have gone much further by prohibiting drivers from possessing a phone while on duty. In Boston, a driver got a suspension by carrying a cell phone (was reported to the management by a journalist who thought the driver was talking on the cell phone but was actually talking on the bus radio). Another driver in Boston got fired by making a stop enroute, leaving his driver seat and talk on a borrowed cell phone.

The tough rules were recently implemented in Boston as an reaction to the light rail crash on the Green Line two months ago, which the operator was texting and rear ended another light rail vehicle. The agency at that time permitted operators to carry those devices as long as they don't use them, and have fired operators for cell phone violations prior to the crash.

While drivers should never use any kind of personal communicating devices while on the driver seat, the agency in Boston was overreacting to score political points. On the other hand at VTA, because it is typical for bus drivers to relieve another enroute at a bus stop, having a cell phone in those situations keep them in contact with the supervisor. Also, it is a bad policy to encourage passengers or others to snitch on drivers who are obviously not putting anyone at risk.

Let's not forget the other Grand Jury report

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


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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense on BART from Reed and Liccardo

BART is the ingredient that will destroy transit in the Silicon Valley.

San Jose Mercury News printed an op-ed from Chuck Reed and Sam Liccardo, responding to Scott Herhold's column expressing opposition to the BART project.

The op-ed essentially represented SVLG/VTA's view of staying the course on the BART project, when, almost eight years after passing the 2000 Measure A, VTA has constructed nothing and the agency is looking forward to another tax increase.

This op-ed deserves a response.

"Several experts have studied less-costly transit alternatives to BART for this corridor, and, without exception, those studies prove the axiom that "you get what you pay for." If we want more than 100,000 weekday commuters to use transit along that corridor, BART remains the only means - by a wide margin - to that goal."

VTA never truly studied other transit alternatives in the corridor. VTA actually sabotaged MTC's studies that would've considered other transit alternatives in the corridor between Fremont and San Jose. Other agencies in the Central Valley are interested in upgrading ACE into a High Speed Rail like service to San Jose. VTA is actually against these proposals because they compete with BART. On the other hand, BART will not provide direct service from the growing Tri-Valley and Central Valley.

"In fact, the BART extension would carry more riders in this county by 2030 than all of our existing forms of transit today - bus, light rail and Caltrain combined."

In Los Angeles, the Red Line subway carries about 127,000 riders per day, and its bus system carries over a million riders per day. It is a no-brainer to figure out that the BART extension cannot have more riders than all the other services that VTA runs, and our urban environment is more similar to LA.

"Mr. Nakadegawa characterizes the 71 percent fare-box return projection as too ambitious, yet our experience tells us otherwise. Within months of completing the BART extension to San Francisco International Airport, the agency recovered 70 percent of its operating costs through fares."

71% farebox recovery is not realistic. When the BART-SFO extension was proposed, backers of that extension suggested the line would generate a fare surplus. Because of that miscalculation on the farebox recovery, SamTrans almost went bankrupt.

Backers today say 71%, which means more like 40% if it is built. As a transit rider, would you accept fare increases and service reductions to pay for the shortfall? As a taxpayer, would you accept more sales tax increases?

"With several residential high-rises under way now in San Jose's downtown core, and with high-density zoning approved near transit stops in Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara, the stations will have a clearly urban character. With or without BART, the future will bring even greater population density."

Although San Jose and Milpitas are building higher density, the density proposed will not generate enough riders, and the density needed to generate enough riders will not receive community support.

Downtown San Jose can only build so high (and therefore so dense) because of the airport conflict. Perhaps SVLG, Reed and Liccardo would have preferred that Ernie Renzel built the airport further away from downtown so that downtown could actually have a real skyline and not having to decide between economic benefits generated by real estate and the airport.

As much as Renzel shortchanged downtown San Jose, SVLG and others are shortchanging transit with BART. If San Jose were visionary, it wouldn't have picked BART to catch up with Oakland. Proposals like Caltrain Metro East are much more visionary, cost less to taxpayers, suitable to the suburban environment, and actually connect to new developments in Central Valley.

Roy Nakadegawa spent decades to improve transportation and he is not beholden to downtown and construction lobby. People like him oppose BART not because they oppose mass transit (which they don't), but because they want a type of mass transit that won't shortchange others.

VTA unveils new web site, federal New Starts agenda, and more

Web site

VTA has unveiled its new web site yesterday at 10:30am. The new web site features simpler navigation for some of the key areas, such as transit schedules. The bus schedules pages also feature full name of timepoints for easier reading. The URLs to individual routes and timetables remain the same.

Federal New Starts agenda

Hidden in the December 13 VTA Board meeting consent agenda is the agency's federal legislative agenda. A particularly interesting part deals with the New Starts program in which VTA intends to receive federal funds for the BART project.

An advocacy principle:

Ensuring that FRA is utilizing a multi-measure approach with regard to evaluating New Starts projects consistent with congressional intent, and not an approach under which a single criterion can determine a project's overall rating or whether it is recommended for funding.

The BART project simply is never going to meet certain key criteria, such as cost effectiveness. Therefore, VTA argues that this project deserves federal funds because of TOD potential and some other soft reasons and would like the FTA to place greater consideration instead of cost effectiveness.

Another advocacy principle:

Supporting modifications to the cost-effectiveness measure to: (a) reflect the benefits of the New Starts project for all users in the relevent transportation corridors, not just for public transit users; (b) account for differences in modes so as not to prejudice or bias the local alternatives analysis process; and (c) provide a true indication of what the federal investment in a particular New Starts project actually would buy by basing cost-effectiveness on the federal contribution to the project rather than on the total project cost.

Over the years, VTA expressed pride for having this project to be so called 80% state and locally funded, etc. VTA therefore thinks that it has the right to waste our tax money as it pleases. The federal requirements, especially in regards to cost effectiveness, is a important safeguard to ensure that limited transportation funding is not wasted on building a monument (or a bum magnet) for the San Jose Downtown Association.

Of course, some of these elements were carried over from the legislative agenda from past years. VTA currently cannot pursue New Starts funding because of its massive shortfall in local tax revenue, and cannot start until voters approve a new tax.

SamTrans not starting SFO shuttle or bus reroute

With BART planning to screw up the connection between Caltrain and SFO and wasting more tax money on running empty trains through South San Francisco and San Bruno in January. SamTrans, which once had control over the operation of the BART extension, says that it won't do anything to mitigate the loss of direct service.

Currently a 5 minute ride would turn into trip at least 10 minutes long with a transfer at San Bruno. On weeknights and Sundays, a trip from Millbrae to SFO would take 15 minutes longer due to timing of train connections at San Bruno.

SamTrans considered rerouting line 292, which goes from San Mateo to San Francisco via the airport, to serve the Millbrae Station. The line currently goes along the east side of the freeway between Burlingame and the airport. A realignment would require the bus to go across the freeway and back. SamTrans rejected the idea on the grounds of not wanting to impact existing passengers riding between Burlingame and the airport.

If there's a safe and well-lit walking path between Millbrae and the airport, in certain cases, it will be faster to walk over than taking BART.

BART plans to screw Caltrain connection to SFO

After the bitter divorce between BART and SamTrans over the SFO extension, BART is proposing to enhance service south of Daly City.

As a part of the proposal, to be voted by the BART Board of Directors on June 14, the Millbrae station would receive mainline service from San Francisco bypassing the SFO station. During weekday and Saturday daytime, Richmond line would serve Millbrae. At other times, the Dublin line would serve Millbrae. The SFO station would be served by the Pittsburg line at all times.

The proposed plan is almost like the original operating pattern in 2003 when the extension first opened for service. BART discontinued that pattern because of the lack of ridership and SamTrans had to pay for the operating shortfall on the extension.

What was not mentioned in the press release is the service between SFO and Millbrae. Through various sources, VTA Watch has confirmed that BART is planning NOT to have a direct service between SFO and Millbrae. Passengers traveling between these two stations would have to transfer at the San Bruno station. The BART station in San Bruno is located one mile north of the San Bruno Caltrain station.

Before 2003, the connection between Caltrain and SFO was provided by a free shuttle that met most trains and made stops at all airline terminals. Since then, passengers have to pay a $1.50 fare for a one station ride on BART to the International Terminal. The proposed plan would still require passengers to pay but would also force them to make an additional transfer. The BART extension was partly sold as an improvement for the Caltrain riders heading to the airport, but that promise was never fulfilled.

SamTrans, however, is not promising whether it can provide any alternative service (like restoring the shuttle bus) for the Caltrain riders heading to SFO. SamTrans is still in a bad financial shape after divorcing from BART and gave up its share of Prop. 1b transit funds. SamTrans is currently demanding payment from San Francisco and Santa Clara counties for the purchase of the Caltrain right of way from Southern Pacific in 1991, which SamTrans fronted the local funding in full. VTA is balking its obligation to SamTrans and Caltrain while dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the San Jose BART extension consultant blackhole.

BART and SamTrans are finally getting a divorce

Key highlights from an op-ed written by Sue Lempert, San Mateo County representative on the MTC:

When the extension started losing money, SamTrans was vulnerable.Continued payments to cover the deficit -- $5 million to $10 million a year -- would ultimately destroy the bus system. Hence, divorce and, of course, alimony. Alimony payments to BART will include $30 million of San Mateo County's Measure A transportation tax which voters renewed in 2004. This has already been approved...

In addition, SamTrans is expected to give BART a portion of its State Transit Assistance (STA), which amounts to approximately $800,000 annually and $32 million from its share of Proposition 1B transit funds. BART will take over operation of the system and responsibility for covering all costs. SamTrans will be off the hook for the extension...

The details of the "divorce settlement" is available here. As a part of the agreement between BART, SamTrans, and MTC, BART will receive a total of $54 million from the Prop 1B funds that can be used for the SFO extension as well as the planned extension to Warm Springs, a wasteful and necessary component for VTA to extend BART further south.

There are lots of lessons to be learned when rail extensions were built on phony promises. At the end, transit riders will determine the success of failure of a new rail lines, not the politicians or lobbyists like SVLG and San Jose Downtown Association. They can spend millions on tax campaigns and consultants, yet build a system that too few riders want to spend money to ride everyday.

Soap opera drama between SamTrans and BART

Since the opening of the BART extension to Millbrae in 2003, BART and SamTrans, instead of getting into a "marriage," it is more like getting a "divorce." Essentially BART is the parent that has the custody of the BART extension, and SamTrans is the other parent that has to pay "child support."

The marriage between BART and SamTrans actually happened years before that, when both agencies were pursuing regional and federal funds to construct the project. That was when BART and SamTrans agreed on a over-estimated ridership projection, as well as building unnecessary subways and extra station platforms which drove the cost up.

Under the agreement between both agencies, BART bills SamTrans for the operating costs based on car-miles. Therefore SamTrans has an incentive to reduce its operating subsidies by asking BART to run fewer and shorter trains. Since 2003, the service along the BART extension south of Daly City has changed a few times in order to reduce SamTrans' operating subsidies.

The current cost disputes surrounds a recent decision made by BART earlier this year to expand train length on the Dublin/Pleasanton line, which serves the SFO extension. SamTrans did not request the increase of train length, but is asked to pay for it.

Although according to the Matier and Ross article on SF Chronicle that the SFO has out-performed other stations, it is in no way meeting the original, or even revised, ridership projection made before the extension opened. In fact, the ridership was drop by 3.2% in March from last year.

Could this happen at VTA?

SamTrans set hearings to consider weekend closure of two Peninsula BART stations

SamTrans, the agencies that financially supports the BART line south of Daly City, is proposing to close South San Francisco and San Bruno stations on weekends to reduce costs. In addition, SamTrans is planning to further increase the fares between San Mateo County stations (except Millbrae) and SFO by $1, beyond what the BART board of directors has approved.

Eliminating service to station is similar to the Caltrain's new operating plan to be implemented on August 1. Under Caltrain's plan, Broadway and Atherton stations will lose weekday service but will retain weekend service.

SamTrans cites low ridership and high costs as reasons to eliminate service at these two stations on weekends. SamTrans plans to reduce and hopefully eliminate operating subsidies in the next few years. Before the extension was opened, SamTrans actually had operating "surpluses" from Daly City and Colma stations.

Why was SamTrans able to have negative operating subsides before the BART extension to SFO and Millbrae opened? The reason is SamTrans gets to collect the total fare from all passengers riding to and form San Mateo County, but is charged for incremental operating costs within San Mateo County. For example, for a trip between South San Francisco and Embarcadero, SamTrans gets to collect the entire fare of $2.95, despite the fact that only a fraction of the trip mile is made in SamTrans-funded San Mateo County.

The likely argument for this type of accounting is that the BART district is not operating any more trains within its own district than it would have without the extension, and that San Mateo County riders are just using the excess capacity.

Although not specifically mentioned, Caltrain is also using the same type of accounting to support the service to Gilroy (page 29) , which still presented a high farebox recovery despite large ridership drops due to the bad economy and the widened US 101.

The amazing thing is that even with the "special" accounting applied to the BART-SFO extension, the line has far fewer riders and still requires large operating subsidies.

Is this a future for VTA?

The big fat Mercury lie

"BART's latest extension, to San Francisco's airport, has had disappointing ridership compared with projections -- but even so, it's carrying nearly as many riders per day as the whole Caltrain line from Gilroy to San Francisco."

This is a big fat lie that the Congress deserves to know.

You can see for yourself here:

SamTrans ridership report on BART - read page 4
Caltrain ridership report - read page 3

For a fair comparison, you should also subtract Colma from the total ridership without Daly City, since the Colma station has been in operation since 1996, 7 years earlier than the entire SFO extension. Also, number of including Daly City is not comparible since the Daly City station has been in operation for over 30 years and half of the service area around the station belongs to San Francisco.

March 2005
21,638 BART extension (SSF, SB, SFIA, Millbrae)
29,118 Caltrain

The number is not even close, even with Colma added.

Also, the BART numbers most likely include boarding and exiting. It would be fair if riders are coming from stations outside the county, which is primarily the case, but riders traveling within the county would get double counted.

As much as the Mercury News editors and Guardino/SVLG like to put it, the issue is not about vision, but how to get to the vision. These folks don't have enough experience with mass transit to know what is really needed. They could sit in their cars for 15 to 30 years for a "vision" to be realized, and afterwards they'll still be stuck in their cars.

People who ride transit today cannot afford to wait 15-30 years. If a 10% improvement in the quality of service could be delivered next year, and for years after that until the "vision" realized, they'll take that instead. Caltrain is basically the latter, an incremental improvement to become a rapid transit system.

Looking back in the ridership numbers. Caltrain was able to deliver a 12% ridership increase in one year in a slumping economy without additional operating subsidy. BART could not have delivered that.