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.

A very good day for high speed rail

President Obama announced that $2.34 billion will be awarded to California for high speed rail and the state-funded Amtrak system.

Although the funding is relatively small compared to the overall cost of the high speed rail project, it is a seed money that can expedite some elements of the entire program. If it is spent wisely by the High Speed Rail Authority and local agencies, it can create jobs and bring some transportation benefits before the entire high speed rail system is built.

While some supporters expressed concerns that this federal aid is too small, it is also important to note that Washington is likely to approve additional funding in future years, especially if the Democrats keep control of the Congress and the White House.

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.

VTA August Board Update and VTA's rude response to the Grand Jury report

Gillig Hybrid

VTA staff proposes to order 70 hybrid buses from Gillig using the Stimulus money. As reported last month, three companies submitted bids. Although the bid from Orion came out to be the lowest, VTA rejected the bid from Orion because VTA says Orion buses did not meet its specification for being over 40-feet long. VTA also rejected the bid from New Flyer because the bid came out to be the highest.

October fare change

VTA plans to move the scheduled fare change from January 2010 to October. This move would generate an addition $1 million in fare revenue, which VTA says would offset the service reduction needed.

Rude and unprofessional response to the Grand Jury Report

Michael Burns may have came in to VTA as a fresh face who has empathy for everyday transit riders. However over the years his relationship with Carl Guardino have tarnished his image.

These are the wordings that Burns chose in response to the Grand Jury Report. Not only these words are inaccurate, insulting, but down right rude:

"The report lacks balance, and appears to rely on the type of anti-BART, anti-public transit rhetoric that was circulated by a group that opposed three VTA measures that were on the ballot in the 2008 General Election."

"It appears that the grand jury was biased in its work, and did not seek and/or accept factual information in response to opinions and statements made by anti-VTA zealots."

These words may fit if Michael Burns were a partisan political thug like Karl Rove. However Burns is supposed to be apolitical. Calling someone anti-VTA zealots is like calling someone unpatriotic just for having a different political view. If people like Michael Burns cannot show tolerance and not willing to engage in substantive debates, is there any hope for this agency to change?

In its response, VTA basically defended its policies on advisory committees and claimed that it did not hide financial information prior to last year's election.

However, VTA's record is inconsistent. VTA says in its response to the Grand Jury that it told the VTA Board that it needs a new 1/4 cent sales tax to fulfill the 2000 Measure A promises, and that it is not inappropiate for VTA not to provide a Measure A expenditure plan before last November because of the bad economy. Despite quite appearent evidence that VTA cannot afford what it says it wants to build, Michael Burns asked the VTA board to "reaffirm" support for the light rail extension to Eastridge (which was nearly shovel-ready but got funding removed) and told reporters last year that Measure B was the only thing needed to build BART to Santa Clara.

Only until earlier this year the sales tax projection showed that VTA cannot afford to build BART beyond Berryessa, and which that projection was made before the recent steep sales tax drop that has triggered a proposed service reduction for January.

Although VTA disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that VTA intends to collect the sales tax for the extension to Berryessa, VTA's response was evasive and said that it would begin collect the tax once the Measure B conditions are met. The fact is that Measure B tax could only start after VTA receives a funding agreement from the federal government for the project, and that VTA is applying for federal funds only for the portion to Berryessa. Given that VTA does not have the funding to build the line beyond Berryessa, and that VTA certainly would not be able to build it at the same time it is building the Berryessa portion, VTA in effect would begin collecting the tax only for a portion of what they campaigned for, whether it is for the initial years during construction for the remaining portion, or even if the other portion is never built at all.

If VTA were not able to receive federal funds, VTA could still build BART to Milpitas. While the Milpitas portion would provide a useful connection between BART and the light rail (in which the portion from Milpitas to Berryessa would add nothing to make the connection better), VTA would not be able to start the Measure B tax since there would not be any federal funds involved. To collect that money, VTA would have to go back to the voters to change the requirement, and that voters are unlikely to buy into another VTA lie again.

The past General Manager Pete Cipolla may have been rough around the edges and insensitive to the needs of riders, but the rudeness and thuggery from the VTA management has gone into a while new level with Michael Burns. Instead of a dialogue, he engages in intimidations against those whose primary interest is to improve transit service. His choice of word "anti-VTA zealots" clearly demonstrates his unprofessionalism and bias toward the construction/consulting lobby.

Cash for clunkers

The Cash for Clunker has become one of the most popular program in the Stimulus package. The program first ran out of money and the Congress scrambled to provide additional funds to extend the program.

The expansion of the program has received criticisms from the transit advocacy community since the program does not directly help transit agencies struggling for funds. There are also questions about the effectiveness on improving fuel efficiency.

The Cash for Clunker however, does provide some benefits. Since the program trades in car one for one, the old ones aren't going to be at a used-dealer lot or on the street. Also because the program stimulates car sales, the increased car sales will provide additional sales tax revenue. Since Sacramento has effectively eliminated direct state support for transit operations, sales taxes (1/4% Transit Development Act and an additional 1/2% at many counties) are the primary funding source for transit operators throughout the state. The economic crisis beginning last year has resulted in double digit percent reduction in sales tax revenue for most agencies, and car dealers are major contributors for sale taxes.

While it is unfortunate that transit funding is somewhat dependent on auto sales, and which it is not sustainable in the long run, nonetheless it is the process we have today until other fundamental changes take place in Sacramento.

Even with billions in federal subsidy, the increased tax revenue through this program may be small from a local perspective and many agencies will still have to make massive cuts. Obviously, more economic stimulus is needed by providing short term operating assistance to transit agencies, which will help keep many of the lifeline transit services needed the most by the low-income workers.

Rod Diridon stirring false HSR funding fears

Unfortunately this is looking like a battle between the Palo Alto/San Jose NIMBYs versus Rod Diridon. Rod Diridon is trying to get the state legistlature to remove the language from the budget bill that would require the HSRA to study alternative alignments to the Caltrain corridor in the project-level EIR for the San Jose-San Francisco segment. The NIMBYs in Palo Alto and San Jose are in favor of the language believing that alternative alignments could be chosen that avoid their neighborhoods. Diridon is opposing this claiming the delay caused by further study would force the agency to miss the deadline set by the Stimulus bill and would have to forego funding.

This political tug-of-war ignores reality. First, some of the alternative alignments are very likely to be screened out because of major flaws. Just because a particular alignment bypasses a neighborhood does not mean that it won't cause harm to the environment and stir opposition from others in the community. A proper evaluation would likely show that a Caltrain alignment would produce the least harm.

Second, Diridon's claim of missing the deadline for the Stimulus fund comes from the assumption that the HSRA would submit the entire corridor for Stimulus funding, which timing would either be too tight or impossible to fulfill regardless. This region would not miss most if any of the Stimulus funds if it prioritizes near term improvements that have been studied and received environmental clearance. The near term projects submitted by MTC for the funding costs about 20% of the total $8 billion of the stimulus funds. The projects submitted by MTC are necessary for high speed rail anyway unless HSRA gives up its current preference and repicks an alignment outside the Caltrain right of way, which this language won't do.

Similar to the current events in Iran, the HSRA can only lose trust in the communities by its rush to judgement and its ignorance to their concerns. While the motive of the legislator who placed the language is suspicious, removing this language from the bill will only foster further distrust by those who have the power to cause further delays for the project.

Restoring the trust will likely require some kind of "regime change" at the High Speed Rail Authority currently dominated by Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon, who both have a history of supporting wasteful transit projects and pick fights against transit advocates to score cheap political points. High speed rail could be way better off with other more competent and less politically divisive boardmembers.

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.

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/HSRA agreement and Palo Alto

On the agenda for tomorrow's Caltrain board meeting (which would be held in the County Building in San Jose, where the VTA board meets) is an agreement between Caltrain and High Speed Rail Authority on sharing the right of way between San Francisco and San Jose.

That agreement outlines how these agencies will cooperate on building the high speed rail in phases. The agreement is clear that:

• - Caltrain will maintain ownership
• - Infrastructure for HSR will be built alongside while Caltrain continues operation
• - Caltrain and HSR will share tracks on a 4 track mainline
• - HSRA will support Caltrain's effort to electrify and improve the signal system so as to prepare the rail corridor for eventual HSR construction and operation.
  

Some of the issues like funding and liability are not addressed in this agreement, however it does recognized these issues. Under the agreement, a program director would be appointed jointly to oversee engineering and design consultants for the corridor. The program director would report to Caltrain's and CAHSRA's executive director.

What caused concerns for Palo Alto is the vision for a 4 track right of way. Fearing that HSR would "divide" their community, Palo Alto is pursuing options such as putting HSR on a different alignment, putting HSR underground, and ending HSR in San Jose.

Regardless of what their fears are, the agreement is essential for Caltrain and High Speed Rail, and would allow both agencies to take advantage of new funding opportunities through Prop 1A and the Stimulus package. Despite the vision of a 4 tracks right of way, the agreement would be beneficial to Palo Alto and other cities because these cities would have to work with a single program director, rather than a local and a state agency.

The 4 track statement in the MOU is a vision. It is not something that can or will be done in the next few years even if there are no funding constraints. Because Caltrain operation would also have to continue, that would have a greater constraints on alignment, profile choices, and construction timings. Even with the agreement, there will be many more questions on how will HSR be built on an active passenger railroad.

Reality hits VTA

At this Friday's VTA workshop, the board will discuss the agency's budget outlook. Given the economic condition, VTA is predicting budget deficits for the next two fiscal years. (VTA has a two-year budget cycle).

VTA is expecting declines in sales tax: a 6.75% reduction from this fiscal year (FY 09) to last fiscal year (FY 08), an additional 5% reduction in FY10 from FY 09, and a 3% reduction in FY 11 from FY10.

On top of that, VTA will lose transit funding from the state because of the state budget situation.

Currently, VTA has an operating reserve of more than $50 million. According to VTA's projection, that reserve will disappear by next year. In the next two years, VTA is projecting a combined operating deficit of $78 million.

Stimulus funds

Contrary to a report by Gary Richards published earlier today, MTC has recommended not to use any of the regional funds for the Transbay Terminal train box project, largely because of the extra $8 billion funding for High Speed Rail pushed by President Obama. MTC's recommendation, however, would provide stimulus funds for a BART connector to Oakland Airport.

While funding to transit agencies have increased, some transit advocates want all the money to go to transit agencies and expressed opposition to the airport connector project.

Guardino's tax hypocrisy

It is not the first time Guardino has done this before, it is just that too many liberals have deluded themselves thinking that SVLG are still good guys when SVLG advocated for new taxes.

The latest state budget proposal contains a $700 million corporate tax cuts advocated by Carl Guardino. Guardino told the Mercury News, "All good things come to those who wait."

Combined with other corporate tax incentives approved earlier by the legislature, the state will lose $1 billion in taxes. The California Budget Bites blog put what that $1 billion could have funded:

- $170 for every student in California’s public schools;

- Enough funding to restore proposed 2009-10 cuts to higher education, In-Home Supportive Services, and services for people with developmental disabilities and to provide a cost-of-living adjustment for families in the CalWORKs Program; or

- Almost as much as the General Fund’s portion of the proposed increase in Vehicle License Fees ($1.2 billion).

Essentially we are asked to pay more while corporations Guardino represents pay less.

Like other public services, public transit has fared poorly under the budget proposal. According to California Transit Association, the budget proposal calls for the elimination of the State Transit Assistance funds, which reduce transit funding by half a billion, on top of the cuts implemented by the legislature in previous years. CTA calls this as the "Armageddon Scenario."

Because of the steep funding cuts, various transit agencies are requesting federal stimulus funds to backfill loss state funding under the "preventive maintenance" category.

The only consistent position on taxes from SVLG is that the little guys should pay more of it through various sales taxes and fees and the big corporations pay less through various corporate tax cuts. SVLG is no way progressive. It only pretends progressive when it campaigns for more sales taxes.

Surprise stimulus gift to High Speed Rail

Earlier today, the House and Senate settled on a stimulus package that's worth just less than $800 million. On the transit side, the final stimulus package will mirror the version approved by the Senate: $8.4 billion will be distributed to transit agencies based on established formulas and with an additional $5.5 billion to be spent on transit and highway projects selected by the Department of Transportation.

Some expressed disappointments that funding for New Starts projects is not included in the final bill (which was actually included at $750 million, a reduced amount from the house version). Some also thought the stimulus package should include direct operating funds to backfill loss state and local funding.

The biggest surprise is funding for High Speed Rail programs. HSR program was not specifically included in the House version of the bill. Later the Senate added $2 billion. During the conference negotiations, the committee agreed to increase HSR funding to $8 billion. According to reports, the increase was urged personally by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The sudden increase in HSR funding can certainly help to accelerate projects. Earlier this week, MTC released a plan on how to spend the stimulus funds. Under MTC's plan, projects that are almost ready to go but lack funding received priority, which included the people mover connection to Oakland Airport and the underground train box at the Downtown San Francisco Transbay Terminal. VTA would also receive stimulus funds on a formula basis to replace aging buses with hybrids.

Some delusionals were quite disappointed that the BART project was not included in the stimulus package. However, that project was not in a position to benefit from the package anyhow. Under the best case scenario, construction would not be ready for another 3-4 years in the minimum, which runs counter to the intent of the stimulus bill: to create jobs soon as a way to recover from the economic slump. Also, the BART system is not compatible with High Speed Rail. Carl Guardino and other VTA boneheads insisted that regional trains and long distance trains cannot share infrastructure, and they actively advocated against sensible proposals like Caltrain Metro East, which would have certainly benefited from the Prop 1A as well as the stimulus package.

Transit being thrown under the bus?

The latest development in the Senate does not appear promising for transit:

But since then, certain senators — including, shamefully, California’s very own Barbara Boxer — have proposed to gut the already-paltry transit stimulus and to redirect new money toward highways.

An example of a sad reality in the U.S. Senate where bipartisanship means capitulations that impact local constituents. An even sad fact is that the Democratic Party still isn't able to "screw the other party" like the Republicans did during the Bush years.

Whatever stimulus funds towards transportation should be given with flexibility and strict accountability. Big cities these days don't need new highways, either they got too much of them or don't have room for them. However these cities, including smaller ones, have urgent needs for transit and maintenance, which keep jobs that already exist and create new ones.

HSR Authority proceeds with project level EIR

With the approval of Prop 1A last November, the HSRA is now in charge of a monumental task to build a high speed rail system in California.

Local

HSRA and the Federal Railroad Administration have announced that they will prepare environmental documents for the San Francisco-San Jose HSR segment. Public meetings have been scheduled later this month:

San Mateo County: SamTrans Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, California, January 22, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.

San Francisco: San Francisco State University, 835 Market Street, 6th Floor (Rooms 673-674), San Francisco, California, January 27, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.

Santa Clara County: Santa Clara Convention Center, 5001 Great America Parkway, Great America Meeting Rooms 1 & 2, Santa Clara, California, January 29, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.

The environmental document approved in 2007 was programmatic-level, largely without detail information on specific designs and mitigation measures. The environmental document that they will prepare is project level, which will include details omitted in the prior documents.

Meanwhile, the HSRA will seek an agreement with Caltrain, which owns the rail corridor between San Francisco and San Jose. Although some have a very ambitious vision for the corridor, it could take a long time to implement (if not scaled down) because of the difficulty constructing in a highly active rail corridor (Caltrain service would continue) as well as obtaining matching funds mandated by Prop 1A.

State

Because of the state's budget crisis and poor economy, the state treasurer hasn't sold any of the HSR bonds needed to finance the consultant work. The agency could soon be running out of cash.

Although the wisdom of using state bonds to finance this project is certainly debatable, there's also a clear need to have a vision for an integrated statewide rail network. It is important to note that the same corridor for intercity high speed trains could be used by regional commuter trains.

One of the top reasons for opposing the BART project is that BART trains simply aren't compatible with high speed rail. The money that would be spent building BART tracks could only run trains as far as from Richmond. If VTA were more wise and visionary, it would have invested in an integrated network connecting the Central Valley and beyond.

Federal

Initially, Barack Obama's victory gave high hopes and expectations that the federal government would provide strong support for high speed rail and other transit projects throughout the country. Recently, some advocates are concerned that high speed rail could be left out of Obama's priorities.

Athough Democrats tend to be in support of pro-environmental programs, environmentalists are just one of many fractions in the Democratic coalition competing for attention. Groups that tend to support the existing highway based paradigm include labor unions, which are a major base of the Democratic Party. In addition, the Democratic administrations also tend to be more fiscally responsible than the Republicans, which only made the competition between various interests more intense.