Streetcar battle about to heat up

Fresno CA - An effort by Fresno Mayor Alan Autry to bring streetcars to the streets of Fresno for redevelopment reasons is about to get ugly.

Fresno City Council voted on Tuesday, October 23rd not to invest city time or money into the idea. The Mayor, of course, plans to veto the City Council's decision and move forward with a study of having streetcars in Fresno.

From what I can see so far in this, it is just another legacy line that Mayor Autry wants. He's so desperate for this streetcar line that he has bypassed the City Council and submitted his proposal for funding of the study to the Council of Fresno County Governments directly.

Of course, when the Mayor presented the plan to the Council of Governments, the impression was made that everyone was "on board" with the idea. To the contrary, many are not.

While the City Council voted to scrap the streetcar study, there may not be enough votes to override the Mayor's pending veto but that doesn't mean that the Mayor won the battle. The Council of Governments is going to review the funding request again based on the new evidence of the Mayor's staff misrepresenting the support for the streetcar study. The Mayor may not have the funding to do the study for his legacy line if the Council of Governments decides to revoke the funding.

This really doesn't surprise me. It happens all the time. A similar thing happened in Pittsburgh with the North Shore Connector last year. The transit system lied through their teeth saying everyone wanted the useless rail line under the river to obtain the funding. The FTA came close to revoking the funding once they found out that the line was not wanted by anyone except the transit system and a handful of politicians.

The people of Fresno need to keep up on this and do the research to learn that the Mayor's streetcar line will do nothing but cost them money. It won't revitalize the city nor will it solve any other problem. All it will do is give the Mayor a legacy line which will have a brass plaque somewhere along the route with his name on it as being instrumental in building the line.

Routes should serve public, not politicians

San Jose CA - In an editorial from The Mercury News, editors have said things I have been saying for years: Transit service should serve the public, not politicians.

The writers of the editorial appear somewhat surprised that transit service today is political. Sadly, that is exactly what it has become and one reason I have spoken out often about taking the politics out of transit. The political issues with transit have done little except to increase the cost of providing service and have done much to push transit systems to the wall.

From being forced to hang onto routes that haul few because of political threats to the countless bad decisions made based strictly on political pandering, public transit today is a mess.

In this situation, the editorial is based on the plan that the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) came up with to change many routes to better serve the public. The VTA Board of Directors wishes to play politics instead and have been reluctant to approve the plan. Why? The VTA route restructuring plan would eliminate many of the political routes that few people ride but politicians just have to have.

It's time to stop the political pandering to brain dead politicians that wouldn't be caught dead riding a bus or streetcar unless it afforded a photo-op. The political pandering hasn't solved any transit problem in this country nor will it in the future. All it's accomplished is to make it too expensive to provide service.

The political issues of transit is the main reason I often state that transit needs a dedicated source of funding that isn't doled out by the politicians. If you take the politicians out of transit decisions, you ultimately will end up with a better operation that is more efficient.

I know a few transit fans and transit insiders that want more government involvement in public transit. They think it will solve the problems. I just laugh at them and show them the mess the political pandering has gotten transit into already and ask them if the politicians have screwed it up this bad already, what makes you think having more involvement from them will solve it? They usually see the light after that.

Although transit has always had politics involved in it, the impact wasn't too bad until the politicians began to meddle in the day to day activities. This started in the 60's but reached current levels of political butt kissing back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. That period was when I noticed many politicians jumping in and meddling with operational decisions at various transit systems as well as threatening transit systems, almost annually, over funding unless their ideas were incorporated into the operation.

Transit systems across the US need to put an end to this and refocus the operations. They need to become efficient and that will never happen as long as they have to pander to the egos of politicians that have no clue what transit is about.

Empty seats just don't pay the bills

Sacramento CA - As fare box receipts and funding continue to decline, Sacramento's Regional Transit (RT) is facing the same realization which many other transit systems across North America are facing. That is, empty seats don't pay the bills.

RT is looking at service cuts to less patronized routes as well as service adjustments to trim out the worst of the under performing routes. Cries of protest naturally are occurring from the decision however, RT can no longer afford the luxury of funding routes that carry few people.

In Sacramento, one route waiting for the budget ax to fall is the Downtown Trolley which averages about 5 riders per hour. "The bus' value transcends skimpy ridership numbers" states RT driver Stephen Renda in defense of the under performing route. Renda then continues that the tourist trolley bus is a "Welcome to Sacramento' bus for tourists".

Renda also states that Sacramento needs more transit, not less. That brings me to ask this, how is all the extra service you want going to be paid for?

I hear the same in every city. More service not less but let's face a hard reality, transit can't continue to run routes and trips that carry nobody just on the hope that someone might ride. The same people that use the "more service, not less" battle cry are the same ones that have fits when their taxes and fares go up to pay for it or their precious social services get slashed to pay for it.

Transit needs to become efficient if it is to survive. Running routes that fall well below ridership minimum standards is not efficient. In Sacramento, the first route I would eliminate would be the Downtown Trolley. It serves few, is duplicated by other routes and is a luxury the system can't afford.

The RT, as well as most transit systems out there, need to take a good hard look at the routes they run. Many routes can stand some thinning out of a trip here and there. One of the tried and proven techniques of increasing efficiency is being on top of the ridership trends and shuffling service to meet those trends. Yes, that means low performing routes get the ax but it also means increased ridership as freed up service can be sent to routes and areas that justify having the service. Sadly, this technique isn't used much these days as transit has become so political and the brain dead politicians can't comprehend such things as they insist that low performing routes be kept so they can get a few votes at election time.

Low performing areas can often still be served by a simple deviation from an existing nearby route on select trips. This frees up manpower and equipment that can be better utilized elsewhere while reducing the cost to serve the low performing area. Another simple and proven technique is to trim back headways on certain routes. Taking a route that runs every 20 minutes and changing it to every 30 minutes has little impact on the existing ridership (beside a slightly longer wait time) but frees up 1/3 of the service for service elsewhere or just plain elimination.

I'm sure the administration at the RT has plenty of waste as well that can be trimmed to save money. Union contracts are another area that I'm sure has plenty of waste built into it.

Many of the problem transit finds itself in today can be traced back to the 1970's and 1980's. That was the period that many of the low ridership routes routes came to be along with generous union contracts as well as having the money available to just waste without worrying about it. Well, it caught up with the transit systems as costs continue to climb and inefficient operations became ingrained as part of the culture of public transit. Few operations during the 1970's and 1980's were immune to this. While some did well at making the routes efficient during this time like PAT in Pittsburgh during the early 1970's, they became top heavy in administration and were learning the ways of wasteful spending in other areas.

The bottom line here is that transit is at the brink of failure today. Through inefficient operations and plain wasteful spending practices. Of course the riding public is the one that suffers for it and the only way to even begin to deal with the situation that transit systems find themselves in now is to go back to the basics of providing service which includes eliminating low ridership routes and freeing those resources for use in areas that will utilize those resources effectively. Money is not unlimited and it's time for everyone to understand that point.

Transit Oriented Development a flop?

Los Angeles CA - Transit systems and cities spend billions of taxpayer dollars on real estate development. They cite the mantra that Transit Oriented Development (TOD) will encourage transit use, allow for development of decaying neighborhoods and bring in more than is spent. That doesn't appear to be happening and finally there is something being said about it.

In Los Angeles, the LA Times did a review of Los Angeles area TOD projects over the past several months. The conclusion was that most who live in TOD projects don't use public transit for a variety of reasons. I can't locate the main story but found the LA Times blog site which has some of this information. It may be information on an upcoming story but the fact remains, most TOD residents weren't using transit.

This is something I have long known anyway so it came as no surprise to me. What did surprise me was the indication of how many shunned transit even though TOD is supposed to be designed to encourage transit use.

With many transit systems focusing more and more on TOD, entire departments are being set up to plan, design and administer such developments. This is taking money away from where it needs to be which is service. SamTrans has designed an entire TOD community at taxpayer expense while at the same time complaining it needs more money to run service.

TOD is fickle. Many TOD projects are failing, not just in attracting ridership but in the whole concept. The build it and they will come philosophy just doesn't work. Costs are much higher than standard development and generally are in higher tax districts. The residents being attracted to these developments tend to be more affluent and far less likely to ride public transit yet billions are being pumped into various TOD projects across the nation. In addition, the real estate bubble is at the point it will burst soon and prices will bottom out leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.

In many ways, TOD it is just another excuse for the politicians can pick the taxpayer's pocket. It also isn't helping public transit as money that can be and should be used for providing decent service is being diverted to real estate development.

While some of the projects have worked, many more haven't even come close to living up to the promises made. With the fact that the vast majority of TOD's are done using taxpayer money, either directly or through sweetheart deals, the taxpayers need to put a stop to the waste.

The urbanization activists that push for TOD are as bad as the pro-rail crowd for spinning the truth. Much of their banter is based on half-truths, misinformation and outright lies all spun to create yet another Utopian vision of perfection that the spendthrift politicians and government bureaucrats bite on.

I am glad to see something finally that gives the opposite viewpoint to what has become an accepted consensus. TOD isn't the Utopian vision that will bring throngs of people onto the transit system and make the area a wonderful place to live.

O'Toole wrong on this one

Victorville CA - A story out of the Victorville Daily Press tells of the difficulties of the loss of commuter bus service in the Victorville area, especially for the disabled and low income residents. It is a situation that is all too common in many areas of the country. Trips on the commuter bus that cost $9 now cost between $28 and $120 using taxi, Greyhound, Amtrak or the local paratransit service.

Enter Randall O'Toole from the Cato Institute. While I generally agree with most of what O'Toole comments regarding public transit, I believe he's wrong on his latest comments regarding issuing vouchers for transit.

O'Toole comes across as though issuing transportation vouchers will reduce government bureaucracy. "Instead of trying to pay for a service that will never turn a profit, O’Toole suggests giving them vouchers — like food stamps — rather than subsidizing a bloated bureaucratic agency" states O'Toole.

Sadly Randall, that isn't the case and you should know it. All your doing is transferring the bureaucracy from one area to another area. The taxpayer will still be shelling out for a bloated bureaucracy to monitor and run a voucher program.

O'Toole is using the free market philosophy which I support but when it comes to public transit, the free market quickly becomes government regulated which drives up the cost of providing services. The residents are already using the free market options and the cost is much greater. Add vouchers to the mix and the cost will go up more because your creating more paperwork for the private entities which will lessen the value of the government issued voucher.

Whenever I hear the word voucher, the first thought that comes to my mind is the bloated government bureaucracy needed to run the voucher program. Vouchers also will not reduce the bloated bureaucracies that are inherent in public transit systems. With the paper shuffling that will be required to run a voucher program, your going to greatly increase the cost of providing service by having to create whole new departments to handle the vouchers.

Why O'Toole thinks vouchers are the answer to reducing costs, spurring free market competition and reducing the size of government is beyond me.

While I sympathize with the plight of the residents that depended on the commuter bus service, instituting a government voucher program isn't the answer to the problem they face nor is it an answer to reducing the cost or size of the bureaucracy in a transit system. All it will do is increase the problems as well as the cost to everyone.

What is needed is what the Victorville Valley Transit Authority General Manager, Kevin Kane, suggests. Get the non-profit social service organizations involved. So far these groups have been reluctant to step up to the plate, even with the carrot of a free van to provide the service. Perhaps the VVTA needs to reduce the bureaucratic weight on such groups that provide service to make it happen or cover their operation using the VVTA insurance.

The cost for a non-profit group to provide such a service isn't cheap. Insurance costs alone can make or break such an operation. Then there are the many government regulations that add to the cost of providing service.

Whatever the reason, the non-profits won't step forward to assist and the reasons need to be made clear. Once understood, perhaps a deal can be worked out to get the idea moving.

When a cut is actually an increase

Sacramento CA - In a letter to the Alameda Times-Star, Dale E. Bonner who is the Secretary of the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (governmental) responded to an article posted in the paper that whined about Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's cuts to transit in the State budget.

Bonner wrote:

A RECENT ARTICLE ("Bakers Bemoan BART Budget Issue," June 20) misrepresents Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed transportation budget.

First, referring to Gov. Schwarzenegger's public transportation budget as a "cut" is inaccurate and misleading. The Governor has increased funding for transit by more than 20 percent over the last year and more than 400 percent over three years ago. His budget proposal shows tremendous leadership on public transit by increasing funding for state and local transit by $321 million.

State funds account for a very small portion of transit agency funding. According to the state's non-partisan legislative analyst, state funds accounted for only 2 percent of all transit agency operating revenue statewide over the last 10 years. The remaining 98 percent comes from federal and local revenue sources and passenger fares. Attributing any change in a local transit agency's budget to the state's traditional 2 percent contribution is illogical and unwarranted.

Gov. Schwarzenegger supports transit in the state. He championed last November's Prop. 1b, which included $4 billion for public transit, intercity and commuter rail and waterborne transit operations, and has promised to continue to build infrastructure for the next generation of Californians.

I myself had been a little confused over the funding situation in California and could slap myself for not remembering one of the key political tools used these days (yes, the spin doctor was winning). An increase in funding over the previous year is considered a cut if it fails to meet the percentage level that the politicians pushing for it want. In their eyes, an increase becomes a cut in the world of political spin and the fact that it actually is an increase over the previous year is completely ignored. It's a tactic that is heavily used by politicians these days as they try to spin their way around each other and I'm ashamed I forgot about that often used little trick.

As with most transit systems across the country, California is no exception to wasteful spending. Remember the 30 page procedure to buy a cake for office parties story that was posted on Laurels and Lances on February 1, 2007. California operations are also much more cost heavy due to more stringent environmental rules which cost transit operators across the state billions of dollars in extra costs. The politics of transit is also very heavy in California which tends to make for wasteful procedures to satisfy the bureaucracy machine.

I have thought for quite awhile that what transit systems in California were doing was looking for the financial band-aid rather than trying for an efficient operation. Another Laurels and Lances column from March 8, 2007 shows the mentality of the Bay Area transit systems which were eagerly gearing up to build more transit projects while at the same time crying about not being able to afford to run what they already have.

As I am seeing this, the state increased its funding but not enough to satisfy the transit systems, local politicians and activists. My solution is to stop whining and trim the internal fat of the transit operations. Try becoming more efficient. Stop looking to build more transit projects when you can't afford to run what you have in place already. And please, stop the spin, I'm getting dizzy.

I'll say this for public transit systems these days, they're becoming worse than my local PBS station (WQED) when it comes to begging for money. I'm just waiting for them to call the riders a bunch of freeloaders like WQED called their viewership many years ago when they were shaking their tin cup a bit too hard...

Art project rusts while costing city plenty

Ventura CA - In an event that is more common than most think, yet another piece of art that adorns a transit facility is being damaged by the elements and costing the taxpayers much more money than the art is worth.

The City of Ventura built a transit center at the north end of the Pacific View Mall in 2002. This art work, which the city calls a shelter, cost $2 million. Since its installation, the structure has started to rust away. Fingers are being pointed and now is in court, wasting even more taxpayer money.

The city isn't maintaining it and trying to get the contractor to pay for restoration while the contractor insists that the city should pay for it since they didn't maintain it. The artist had final say in what paint and undercoating were to be used and he blew it. The result is a $2 million dollar rusting hulk that will take a few hundred thousand to restore, not including the money spent on the legal proceedings.

Anytime Federal funds are involved, art is mandated. If Federal money isn't involved, the local cultural community whines and complains until they can get art installed. Both scenarios are fully at taxpayer expense.

What few seem to understand is that these artsy-fartsy designs, sculptures and other permanent art work cost millions and the cost is on-going for maintenance. In some instances, the artwork takes priority over the facility itself due to the agreements over the artwork. If the piece doesn't get pristine maintenance, the artist and cultural groups begin hiring lawyers.

I have always had a problem with the rules requiring artwork, especially in transit projects. Most of what I see in these public art projects that cost millions to have is pure junk. I've seen better junk being tossed out on trash day.

Art is an acquired taste as well as one of personal taste yet the cultural community has succeeded in shoving their vision of art on everyone at the taxpayer's expense.

Transit systems are especially hit hard by having to maintain the mandated art due to the threat of expensive legal proceedings if they don't. In addition, if the art isn't maintained, it makes the facility look shabby. There is nothing wrong with a clean facility using easy to maintain materials, especially when the taxpayers are footing the bill.

Here's a solution, if the cultural community insists on art then let them pay for it as well as maintain it on their dime. It will never happen as it is just so much easier to spend your money than it is to spend their money.

The last two paragraphs in the article say it all and are sentiments expressed by the vast majority if the public in every city:

“It’s just rotting away and they paid $2 million,” Comstock said. “Somebody should be paying for the upkeep since they spent so much money on it. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I guess it’s art. They call it art. I don’t understand it.”

Sally Ramos, owner of Allison’s Country Cafe which faces “Bus Home,” echoes Comstock’s sentiments. “I think it was a waste of money. I think they should have built something practical like a structure that people could stand under when it’s raining and not get wet,” Ramos said, then added, “You look at it and just kind of wonder ‘Why?’”

Transit fails to hold ridership

San Francisco CA - While there was a great improvement in ridership numbers following the I-80/I-580 connector ramp disaster, transit systems are failing to hold onto the ridership surge. The Insidebayarea news site reports on the slip in ridership numbers even though the melted interchange has not been repaired.

Many are drifting back to their cars even though they are more likely to sit in traffic. This trend of commuters going back to their cars is dumbfounding the public transit advocates who are off in their own little world when it comes to reality.

The problems in keeping the new ridership are many and the main problem is that public transit is not designed to haul everyone. It never has been nor can it be made to.

This is not meant to be critical of the transit operations in the Bay area. They've done a commendable job in adapting to the influx of new riders however the simple fact that bus or rail service is not anywhere as flexible as the private car needs to be understood.

In such events where there is a sudden surge of ridership, the transit system will be very lucky it retains 10% of the initial flow of new riders after 6 months. The reason is that public transit is designed to flow into a central business core. With urban sprawl and businesses relocating outside of traditionally higher tax base areas, transit systems can no longer compete successfully.

"All you need to do is add more routes and the rider can transfer to get where they're going" say the transit advocates. Wrong. Each forced transfer to get a rider to their ultimate destination reduces the chance of them becoming a regular rider by more than 50% and greatly increases the cost of providing service. Riders that have to transfer more than once to reach their destination are 80% more likely to avoid public transit as long as they have alternatives open to them such as a car.

In general, most of the choice riders are willing to make some adjustments to their travel plans as long as they can get quickly from point A to point B. This usually works fine when dealing with suburbs to the downtown core but even then the system must make itself somewhat flexible by providing sufficient service for the rider to make choices. I used to live in an area where I had 1 bus a day. One trip in the morning and one in the afternoon. If I missed that single inbound or outbound trip, I was screwed.

Another big problem for public transit is the modern trends in the business industry. Many companies are no longer just 9 to 5 but have a 24 hour work force with staggered hours. This makes it far easier for a person to justify taking a car to work rather than transit.

As mentioned earlier, businesses that are relocating outside of the higher taxed urban core play into the transit problems also. Most transit systems, even those with rail, have very poor reverse commuting. In other words, a reverse rush hour.

Transit advocates need to understand that they are never going to get 100% of the people to ride. The automobile will always be a competitor that will win out when push comes to shove. The best transit systems can hope for is to retain as many choice riders as they can. That is done by the basics which is providing clean, safe, reliable and convenient service to as many riders as they can. This is something many systems are doing a poor job at.

The transit advocates need to stop their hand-wringing about the private automobile and concentrate on getting what is in place already for public transit in their area working. I doubt that will happen as most advocates are too busy trying to saddle transit systems with expensive and unneeded transit projects rather than dealing with the basics.

MUNI assaults increasing

San Francisco CA - The Examiner.com site had an interesting report on assaults against MUNI employees. The issue of assaults against transit personnel is something that effects all transit systems and the problem seems to be increasing.

MUNI employees (drivers, station attendants, etc.), experienced an average of 71.4 attacks a year for the last 5 years. That number is actually low as many assaults are not reported. Assaults often not reported are slapping, throwing things, spitting and yelling at the operator. These types of non-reported assaults often happen multiple times a day in every system.

The same trend is occurring at most every major transit system and there is no sign that the assaults will begin to drop off anytime soon. On the contrary, it appears the number of assaults on transit personnel will continue to increase.

The only reports the public usually hears of are on the severe end of the scale. In a few cases over the years, I've found that even these severe side of the scale reports from the Liberal media lean toward blaming the operator rather than the "innocent" rider who started the confrontation. I recall a recent story out of Canada where a driver was dragged out of the bus and beat up. The dyed-in-the-wool Liberal reporter asked in their report what the driver did to provoke such a response as though the peaceful rider that beat up the driver would never do something like that unless the operator provoked it.

Many states have a law similar to what California has where assaults on a transit worker are considered a felony. The problem is that the courts and District Attorneys often reduce charges or dismiss the case all together. This literally make the felony law a feel good measure that does little and puts the transit drivers at greater risk in doing their job.

Those who follow the transit industry will remember when on-board transit security cameras first came out and were being put on buses across the country. Unions complained about them invading the privacy of its members but over the past several years, the unions have done an about face and are demanding security cameras be put on transit vehicles to help protect the operators since the courts won't.

Management also doesn't often support the operators, even when the taped security video clearly shows the operator did nothing wrong. Management is so concerned that they'll be labeled anti-rider by the various activist groups and scare off riders if they start prosecuting the riders that assault the operators that they help put the operators (as well as other passengers) at an ever increasing risk.

Even back in the past when people were more civil toward each other, being a transit operator wasn't an easy job. Today the operators literally risk their lives with some of the nut cases that ride. Until the transit systems and courts start getting tough with the riders that violate the law and assault transit personnel, the risk will continue to increase.

While there are some bad apples in the transit system, the vast majority of the assaults originate from the rider that was never taught how to behave when they were growing up. I have witnessed more than a few of these operator-rider incidents in my life and every one of them was caused by a rider that was in the wrong.

The politicians don't help matters either. Madison Wisconsin operators were screaming for security cameras to be installed on the buses for safety reasons and that was met with politicians debating the expenditure for over a year (yet they can come up with money to study building an unneeded streetcar line). Detroit Michigan operators and riders have been demanding that police be assigned to ride the buses for over a year and the politicians keep voting it down because of the expense yet are talking at the same time about rail lines.

It's time to knuckle down on the misbehaving rider and lower the risk that the operators and other riders that know how to behave have to take. While I'm not known for advocating for spending more money on transit, operator and rider security is one area that must be addressed. It's not cheap to do but it is something that must be done if you want a transit system these days.

Cash strapped MUNI throws party for T-Third line opening

San Francisco CA - A commentary piece sent to me tells of the MUNI parties they held to celebrate the opening of their new T-Third rail line. The cost of these parties to the cash strapped transit system: Approximately $158,000.

MUNI hosted two parties, one for the general public and one for VIP's which included politicians, career bureaucrats and activists. A harpist, uniformed servers passing around quiche and salmon treats, and a red carpet were the highlights of the indoor VIP party.

The $158,000 paid for catering, tables and chairs, entertainment, sound and video systems, portable toilets and a number of other items that go into putting on big celebrations. While no cost breakdown can be found, it's easy to guess that the VIP party took the biggest chunk of the money.

While I have no problem with celebrating a grand opening, MUNI went overboard considering their financial situation. I have been to many grand openings of various transit projects and the celebration cost was usually budgeted anywhere from a few hundred dollars to $35,000. Spending $158,000 while at the same time screaming for more money to operate just tells me that the operation is looking for ways to waste money.

I'm sorry but a harpist is not needed nor is a separate party for the politicians given the financial situation at MUNI. A much more subdued approach would send a message that MUNI is trying to watch its finances. All this did was send a message that the agency is not financially responsible.

I'm awarding MUNI a Lance for wasting money when they can't afford it. They could have done a satisfactory celebration for far less and put the difference into actually running the service.

I won't even get into the problems the new line had on party day...

Knee Jerk Reaction = Higher Costs and Less Funding

Bay Area CA - The Oakland Tribune reports on a bill introduced by freshman assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier (D) of Concord, CA which would effect how transit systems are funded. The bill could effect the operating funding received as well as raise costs to the transit systems.

The bill he introduced would give reduced price rides to low income people to get around to work, school, shopping and medical care. It sounds good, right?

That's the problem. It's another knee jerk, feel good measure that wasn't researched to see the effect it would have on the transit systems in the Bay Area or how it would be paid for. Why politicians fail to understand the concept of "cause and effect" still amazes me.

Beside the fact that California is struggling for money and the money for DeSaulnier's subsidy bill would have to come from somewhere (and don't forget that the Governator has already stripped millions from the public transit funding pot to pay for other programs), nobody even mentioned the fact that you would have to create a whole new department to review low income applications for the reduced fare as well as do the accounting for the program. That isn't a cheap proposition and of course, it was never given a thought.

The way the California State laws are set up for funding transit, this additional subsidy could further reduce the amount of funding received from the State. This also was never given a thought when the bill was introduced.

At least DeSaulnier admitted he was "a little bit naive about this" although I'd say he was extremely naive about it. He was also bending over and grabbing his ankles for the activist groups who wear blinders when it comes to cause and effect. A hint for the politicians, the more vocal an activist group is, the smaller percentage of the population they really represent regardless of who or what they claim to represent.

Even though DeSaulnier admitted he didn't think things through when he introduced his bill, he still earns a Lance. Next time, do the research before trying to further bankrupt public transit.

AC Transit's Van Hools drawing debate

Oakland CA - The Inside Bay Area site reports on a bus that you either love or hate, the Van Hool buses that AC Transit currently operates and has an order in for more.

When I first saw these things, my first thought was "they are going to be expensive as hell to repair if damaged". Well it turns out I wasn't far off as drivers have confirmed this at the most recent AC Transit board meeting.

The critics of the Van Hools, many of whom are seniors and disabled individuals, cited at the AC Transit board meeting a jarring ride, seats that are difficult to reach and narrow aisles. Drivers cited a narrow wheelbase that leaves a large overhang which smacks into objects on sidewalks as well as a ride that jostles passengers.

Proponents of the Van Hools also had their say. They love the looks and praised the reduced noise and emissions. They also cited a survey that gave the Van Hool high marks. Personally, I'd like to see that survey as well as the raw demographic data collected on it as more than likely the results are skewed to reflect the view of the transit system.

AC Transit is to get in the first prototype for the second order in May with many modifications made to it. Additional changes can then be done on the rest of the order if needed.

Now for a few comments from myself. First off, screw the looks of the bus. I can agree with the reduced noise and emissions but when one of the top reasons for proponents liking the bus and wanting more of them is strictly the appearance, they probably don't ride much.

Appearance doesn't get many butts in the seat either. Good, clean, convenient and reliable service does. The bus could look like an old Ford Edsel and people will still be willing to ride if the service is good. You don't need a "Euro" look to attract riders unless your trying to attract the snobs that wouldn't ride even if they were paid to ride.

What I found as a rather ignorant comment from Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty was this. When he chided the Van Hool detractors for not working out their issues with the elected AC Transit board. Excuse me Mr. Haggerty but I've been reading numerous news reports on their attempts at trying to work things out with the board for 5 years over the various issues with the buses. Perhaps you just closed your ears to their attempts and if the AC Transit board is anything like the board of directors at my transit system, the critics would just be ignored anyway.

Hopefully AC Transit will make the needed modifications to settle this issue.

Bay Area prepares for spending spree

San Francisco CA - Bay Area transit systems are gearing up to spend $1.3 billion dollars from a recently approved bond fund for transit infrastructure. The Examiner reports on the 12 Bay Area transit operations that will benefit from this windfall.

This sounds great doesn't it? It comes with a price however and that price is this. Will the transit operations, many of whom have been crying over not having enough money to operate, be able to operate the capital projects they are planning on building?

Yes, this is capital money. It can't be used for operating what these systems already have in place. MUNI in San Francisco is are planning on extending its Third Street light rail line with the money while at the same time crying about how they need millions more in order to operate what they already have.

Now, add to the new MUNI problem this point. Mayor Newsom is proposing that MUNI eliminate fares and provide free service (without any increase in operating funding) and you have a system poised for failure.

Capital money is easy to obtain. Sadly these transit systems are in such a rush to build new projects simply because they can get the money that they fail to realize that they can't afford what they have now. Capital funding needs to be tightened up so that it is harder to obtain.

Between the transit systems and politicians that are on spending sprees, the public that depends on the transit systems are the ones that ultimately suffer from the abundance of capital money. Why doesn't anyone use their brain and ask this, "if we're crying for money to operate now, how are we going to be able to operate once we have to start paying to operate the new project?"

While some of that infrastructure bond money will be used properly, such as BART which needs to replace its aging fleet of rail cars, much of the money will go to expanding existing costly projects for systems that are already severely cash strapped.

Fare cheats hurting MUNI

San Francisco CA - The San Francisco Chronicle reports on massive losses from fare cheats on the San Francisco MUNI system. Sadly this is a problem that isn't limited to MUNI but effects systems nationwide.

From fake passes to just plain refusing to pay, MUNI estimates it loses tens of millions of dollars each year and that's just from the rail stations. The estimate of between $24.7 to $33.4 million a year doesn't include the bus operation which could raise the amount by at least 10% or more.

While part of the problem is a large amount of broken fare boxes on the buses at MUNI, the bulk of the loss occurs on the rails where between 54 and 73 percent of the riders don't pay or show proof that they paid. Expensive fare barriers and fare collection technology has had little impact in keeping the fare cheats off the system and most likely it never will.

What MUNI and other systems need to do is just bite the bullet and hire sufficient numbers of fare inspectors and give up on the billions wasted on the useless technology that has ended up costing them billions in lost fares nationwide.

In addition, fines for counterfeit passes need to be higher than $500 and just a summary offence and the fare policy needs to be strictly enforced. It needs to be a misdemeanor with fines in excess of $5,000 to even start to make a dent in the fake passes. Those that distribute the fake passes need an automatic $100,000 or more fine and a year cooling their heels in jail. Once people have to start forking out serious cash and even serving jail time, you will find a dramatic drop in the number of fare cheats riding the system and the enabling others to cheat on the fares. It won't eliminate the problem but it will stop many from buying the fake passes if they know they stand a good chance of getting caught and paying hefty fines along with getting a criminal record.

Let them eat cake at the taxpayers expense

Santa Clara CA - The InsideBayArea news site had a little article showing how the taxpayers are further being fleeced by wasteful transit agencies.

In the report, we hear of the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) using tax money for cakes for various parties at the agency.

I must ask this. Why are taxpayers paying for cakes for various office parties? Let me tell you how it's done in the private sector. Employees make a voluntary collection and go out and buy a cake. The traditional manner of doing this seems to be lost on the bureaucratic leeches in government agencies.

While 20 to 30 cakes a year may not add up to very much in the big picture, they shouldn't be paid for with operating money or any other tax money. This is a transit system, not Party Central which it seems the VTA is turning into.

What is funny in this article is the complicated bidding procedure to get the cakes. The bidding procedure was a whopping 33 pages long!

What ultimately happens is that a $20 cake that could be purchased by taking up a collection among the employees now can cost thousands of dollars due to the bureaucratic red tape and staff needed to put the cake up for bid, review the bids and award the cake to the lowest bidder. The process also involved a "tasting panel" who's job it was to determine the best tasting cake.

The only high point is that there were no bidders so the VTA has to run out to get a cake now when needed, most likely with taxpayer's money however. At least it will reduce the cost of the cake to the taxpayer since there won't be miles of red tape to wade through to get one like before.

The VTA earns a Lance for wasting tax money. If you want to have a cake, take up a collection among the employees like is done in offices across the country and stop sponging off the taxpayers. People at the VTA obviously have way too much time on their hands and not near enough work to do if they can come up with ridiculous regulations like this one. And Liberals think we need even more government involvement in our lives...

An MTA temper tantrum?

Los Angeles CA - The LA Daily News has a story about the Los Angeles MTA questioning a plan by the Govenator to slash transit funding. What is confusing in this story is this:

With the MTA already considering fare hikes to reduce its deficit, officials are grappling with news that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to withhold $100 million they'd counted on to build transit projects in the nation's most-congested area.

It sounds as though the money that Arnold Schwarzenegger is planning on holding back in his budget plan is capital money, not operating money. If the MTA is swimming in red ink as they claim, building more transit projects would only put them deeper in debt.

This is really making me question why the MTA is crying poor and threatening fare hikes and other revenue raising items to cover the red ink. If the money in question is capital funding, they wouldn't be able to use it to keep service on the road anyway. What I am getting from all this is that the MTA might be having a temper tantrum because they can't build more transit projects without the money.

This points out a big problem with public transit administrations today. They are losing touch with what they are supposed to be doing and that is providing service. Many transit systems are too busy planning the next big project to build and can't be worried about focusing on providing simple transit service.

If the money that Gov. Schwarzenegger is planning on withholding is truly capital funding, I don't have a major problem with it. Yet various news reports from various transit systems are all screaming about this and every one of them has the same tone to it that indicate that it's capital money for various transit projects these systems so desperately want to build.

MUNI: On-time costs extra

San Francisco CA - In a typical Liberal move, San Francisco is seeing how it can kill off the transit system. Reported on the San Francisco Examiner's web site, the story tells of an effort to make MUNI service more on-time and the costs involved.

A pilot program aimed at one single route that wasn't in too bad of shape has cost MUNI an extra $168,000 for the 3 month test. If run all year, the cost would balloon to around $750,000. The story is a bit misleading in stating that the $750,000 annual cost would be annually for a system wide effort. The $750,000 is for the test if it was run for a year and the test is just 1 route. To do it system-wide, the costs would run a few million dollars a year at minimum.

This test is being done because of a voter approved ballot measure that demanded on-time performance be at least 85% or higher. Then there is Mayor Gavin Newsom who is also demanding the on-time performance improve without raising any fares, cutting any service or any increase in funding to MUNI to fund the additional costs.

While issuing of tickets to motorists who park and block the traffic flow can conceivably help offset the cost of the program, it won't cover all the costs. To run the test program cost $168,000 and they raised $88,000 from tickets. The fine money is dubious to depend on as well as once people become more accustomed to knowing they'll be fined, they'll avoid the tickets and the revenue from the fines will drop.

I'm not defending MUNI's poor on-time performance and while it's laudable to want to increase the on-time performance, a voter ballot measure and political mandates aren't the way to do it. As the MUNI test is clearly showing, it is further hurting the already cash strapped agency and placing the operation that much closer to a major fiscal crisis.

As Jim Quinn, one of my favorite radio show hosts, always states, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent". This is a great example of what he means. The San Francisco residents are pushing for a government cure for the on-time issue at MUNI and that cure will ultimately increase costs to every taxpayer in San Francisco as well as put MUNI at more risk for a complete shut down of operations. The end result down the road? No more worries about on-time performance since there won't be any service left to be on-time.

The residents that voted for this stupid measure and Mayor Newsom will be crying when MUNI is forced to just shut down operations system wide. They'll point fingers at everyone except themselves for the situation, a situation they pushed for by forcing MUNI to spend more money to fix a problem through government mandates.

LRT may not be so easy in Orange County

Orange County CA - In a comment that will get the pro-rail crowd upset, the new chairwoman of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Carolyn V. Cavecche, has announced that she wants the negative impact of rail expansion explored before slapping down a new line.

Reported in the Los Angeles Times, Cavecche wants more scrutiny of future rail projects in Orange County.

All I can say is that it is about time. Too often the negative impacts of LRT lines are ignored and glossed over by the pro-rail crowd that pushed for the lines. Once built, it's too late to deal with the problem an LRT line can create. This process may help get a better handle on solving problems before they occur and possibly place the bar a bit higher to get an expensive project rammed through.

If Cavecche is successful in pushing her idea, it won't eliminate new LRT lines but will make the process more complete and less one sided. Currently, how rail will effect surrounding communities is often viewed in the idealistic sense. Problems are rarely considered until after the line is built and by then it's too late.

The pro-rail crowd will hate it if she gets her way. They don't want anything brought up that may hamper getting another LRT line in place. By exposing the negative aspects of LRT during the planning stages, it does risk not having the line built and that's blasphemy for the pro-rail crowd. As mentioned, Cavecche's idea will not eliminate any future line unless the negatives far out weight the positives. The risk for denial is still there however and that will not sit well with the pro-rail crowd.

Carolyn V. Cavecche earns a Laurel for wanting to get information on the negatives of future LRT projects before they are approved. The expense to taxpayers for expensive projects need to be scrutinized much more than they are. More operations out there need to do the same before they just slap a line down.

LA's Orange Line is crumbling

Los Angeles CA - Two news stories, one in the Los Angeles Times and the other in the LA Daily News report that the pavement on the recently opened Orange Line busway in Los Angeles is deteriorating.

The problem is stated to be related to the specifications used in the asphalt mix that paves the 14-mile long busway. Currently there is a lot of finger pointing between the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority and the contractors.

Between cracks in the pavement and rutting of the surface, the busway surface is in poor shape. Nobody can seem to figure out why the pavement is deteriorating.

I really question the use of asphalt in projects like busways. I am very curious as to why they didn't use cement. Three busways in Pittsburgh were built with cement and there has been little problem with the roadway surface and the busways are holding up well.

The noise factor from tire noise between asphalt and cement in the low to medium speed Orange Line would be minimal. The MTA tried to limit the noise further by paving some sections with a rubberized asphalt coating and found that it only lowered the noise by 2 decibels, a minimal amount that is barely noticeable. The same would be true for cement versus asphalt, a minimal reduction in noise. The busways in Pittsburgh are no more noisy using a cement roadway than they would be with an asphalt roadway.

Asphalt is not really good for applications like busways in my opinion. Sure, it's cheaper in the short term but in the long term, it ends up costing more due to more frequent maintenance and repaving.

Public Transit In Slow Motion

A news story out of San Francisco regarding public forums for the MUNI Transit Effectiveness Forum points out a reason why public transit lags in responding to problems and ridership trends. One small paragraph in the news story tells a whole lot:

Line 56 was rerouted to stop at John King Senior Center when people stepped
forward to report that seniors were commonly using the line to reach the senior
center. The change took 6-9 months to implement, Straus said, after public
hearings and other requirements were completed.

To be fair to MUNI, 6 to 9 months to do a rerouting based on ridership trends is a bit faster than it is for most government public transit agencies in this day and age. To jump through hoops, cut through miles of red tape and make sure every "i" is dotted and "t" is crossed to satisfy the ridiculous amount of regulations that politicians have placed on public transit agencies usually takes a year or longer.

The problem is that 6 to 9 months is still too long to wait when it comes to adjusting for changing ridership trends. Every year the time stretches out between determining something needs to change and the change actually happening. Even just 20 years ago, minor changes such as a small rerouting of a route to accommodate ridership changes could be accomplished within a month.

The long lag time for changes is one reason public transit has problems attracting ridership. When ridership trends change, transit needs to act fast to adjust to those changes or lose ridership. Slow reaction time to ridership trends is one of the reasons many won't ride public transit.

Most systems eventually make the needed changes but by the time they do, many former and potential new riders have developed new transportation habits which doesn't involve the public transit system.

Minor changes, such as the MUNI change to their route 56 line, need to be fast tracked. When requests for service is made and the research shows the change is beneficial to the service the agency provides, it should be exempt from the multitude of rules, public hearings and other political red tape that bog down the process. That single change on MUNI route 56 should have been made within a few weeks after determining the service was needed, would be utilized and did not constitute a major service change.

Other changes, such as a new route or major extension to a route, also need to be fast tracked when the system determines the change is needed based on ridership changes. Of course, major changes will take longer but they should be done within 3 to 4 months, not a year or longer.

Various methods can be done to reroute a bus. Have certain trips handle the extension with other trips going on the existing route if the change effects too many along the line as well as just completely rerouting the route is research shows the effect on people along the line will be minimal.

The bottom line is that transit needs to run efficiently and to run efficiently you need to run trips that service the most people with each trip. This requires changing routes to meet the ridership trends in a timely manner. Yes, a few people may be inconvenienced by a route change but the changes need to favor the majority of the ridership on a route, especially in this time of tight transit funding where every penny counts. The more people a transit system can service with existing resources, the better off everyone is.