Caltrain's ugly choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

My commute sucks...no thanks to SVLG

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

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

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

HSR Authority signs pact on Altamont

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

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

Caltrain service is on the chopping block too

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

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

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

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

Texting while driving

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

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

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

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

Attack on paratransit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change in motion or more of the same

It is typical for MTC to raise big expectations but then only end up to be more of the same. The so call "Change in Motion" of T2035 is simply another plan to protect funding for highway expansions, commit uncertain funding for the otherwise financial unsustainable BART project, and not address the funding shortfall for everyday transit operations.

MTC is actually quite honest about their move to allocate uncertain and yet-to-be-legislated high occupancy toll lane revenue for the BART project as a way to defraud transit riders and taxpayers in the future:

MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger acknowledged the commission was moving ahead before they had legislation, but saw no problem with it. "I would consider the issue that is before you today in the plan and the placement of the $2B as a placeholder, which is subject to change and probably will change. I will acknowledge that we are jumping the gun to some extent. But I think that's a reasonable planning assumption to make and I don't think it has to prejudice this process. We need to make some kind of commitments now, at least on a provisional basis."

By making this move, MTC is signaling VTA that it is okay for VTA to continue spending money on consultants. When the project becomes "shrovel ready," MTC would then cut other transit projects to make up the actual funding shortfall. For instance, the Warm Springs extension has been on the past RTPs for years because MTC assumed the project would be funded by surplus passenger revenue from the SFO extension. When ridership fell below MTC's expectation and that funding got evaporated, MTC made San Mateo County pay for construction anyway by defunding the Dumbarton Rail project.

MTC and VTA want everyone to believe that they're "surprised" by this economic crisis and that somehow through this plan they don't need to ask for more tax dollars or transit cuts. However their history shows otherwise. Since 2001, they have been trying to make the BART project appear affordable. When they got some money, they would spend more than what they have so they can extort us for more money later by raising taxes and cutting transit projects.

Meanwhile MTC has gotten the justification to expand highways (HOT lanes) and that somehow widening more highways would mean less pollution and less dependence on automobiles.

VTA budget highlights

Despite clear indications of a weak economy since last year, VTA continued to deny huge revenue drop until recently. This Friday, the VTA board will discuss its biannual budget.

Tax drop

VTA basically is expecting revenue from sales taxes will continue to decline for the next 2 years (5% in FY10 and an addition 3% in FY11). Given the escalation in cost, VTA's purchasing power (inflation adjusted revenue) would be even less than what VTA had in 2003.

Bus cuts

From the draft budget:

"The original plan was cost neutral with service hours reallocated from substandard performing routes to other routes which have proven ridership demand. Unfortunately, with the current economic climate, the reduction of state funding for transit and the decline in sales tax revenues, VTA must be cautious with service plan improvements given the need to address our operating deficit in the next few years. Our priority is to protect our existing, well performing services, especially the core network that carries over three-quarters of the daily bus passengers. As such, the Board approved plan calls for the proposed service reductions on underperforming routes to begin implementation on July 13, 2009."

Light rail

VTA has reduced the length of trains to reduce operating cost.

Fare hikes

VTA is proposing general fare hikes effective July 2010, and fare hikes for Eco Pass contracts in January of 2010:

ADULT	Current fare	Proposed fare	Change	% Change
Cash	$1.75	$2.00	$0.25	14%
Community Bus	$1.00	$1.25	$0.25	25%
Light Rail Excursion Pass	$3.50	$4.00	$0.50	14%
Day Pass	$5.00	$6.00	$1.00	20%
Day Pass Token	$22.50	$27.00	$4.50	20%
Express Day Pass	$10.00	$12.00	$2.00	20%
Monthly Pass	$61.25	$70.00	$8.75	14%
Express Monthly Pass	$122.50	$140.00	$17.50	14%
YOUTH	Current fare	Proposed fare	Change	% Change
Cash	$1.50	$1.75	$0.25	17%
Community Bus	$0.50	$0.75	$0.25	50%
Light Rail Excursion Pass	$3.00	$3.50	$0.50	17%
Day Pass	$4.00	$5.00	$1.00	25%
Day Pass Token	$18.00	$22.50	$4.50	25%
Monthly Pass	$40.00	$45.00	$5.00	13%
SENIOR/DISABLED	Current fare	Proposed fare	Change	% Change
Cash	$0.75	$1.00	$0.25	33%
Community Bus	$0.50	$0.50	$0.00	0%
Light Rail Excursion Pass	$1.50	$2.00	$0.50	33%
Day Pass	$2.00	$3.00	$1.00	50%
Monthly Pass	$20.00	$25.00	$5.00	25%

As you can see, most fares would be adjusted to the nearest dollar. For the Eco Pass contracts, the fares would go up by 20%.

Labor

According to the budget, VTA has stopped filling vacant positions other than those critical to the agency. In addition, VTA proposed a number of measures to reduce labor cost:

• - Wage freeze/cuts
• - Furloughs
• - Employee contribution to Pension
• - Employee contribution to Retiree Medical
• - Increase employee contribution to healthcare

Michael Burns also approached the unions to reopen the contracts. However, the contract with ATU (VTA's biggest union) was just ratified last fall, when the economy was already weak. One has to wonder whether Burns was at all intended to stick with the contract, or that he was willing to do anything to prevent a strike last fall so that he could deceive voters.

VTA will host budget meetings in May:

Monday, May 4, 2009
3:00-5:00 pm and 6:00-8:00 pm
Santa Clara County Government Center-Isaac Newton Room

Tuesday, May 5, 2009
6:00-8:00 pm
Morgan Hill-Community & Cultural Center

Wednesday May 6, 2009
6:00-8:00 pm
Milpitas-Milpitas Public Library

Monday, May 11, 2009
6:00-8:00 pm
Mountain View-Council Chambers

Tuesday, May 12, 2009
6:00-8:00 pm
Cupertino-Quinlan Community Center

Tasman West - a decade later (part 2)

Here's more from almost 10 years ago...

 

VTA's Take One on Tasman West opening.

 

Tasman West commemorative ticket

VTA system map just before the opening of the Tasman West line (large file). Shown on the map is line 20 from Milpitas to San Antonio Shopping Center. Also on the map are other lines that were discontinued during the next few years after the Tasman West opening.

VTA's on its way to increase fares

On VTA's Workshop scheduled on April 24, General Manager Michael Burns is recommending the board to increase fares to help address VTA's budget problem. The increase would cover all fare categories.

Recent economic crisis and state budget cuts have impact other transit operators. AC Transit and Muni have approved fare increases. County Connection in the East Bay made significant bus cuts last month.