Comments on: MTC, not AC Transit, is responsible if BRT is canceled.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:47:17 +0000

some AC money history. Before 13 AC had a percentage real estate taxfunding deal. They were dumb enough to believe the line from the legislature that the State Transit Assistance replacement of that funding would be enough. We all know how well that has worked, not to mention the ‘Spillover’ money also embezzled by the state. The fixed dollar funding now in place was insufficient when enacted and does not index to rising fuel or labor costs. Unless you are willing to play Reagan’PATCO, labor costs are not going down. Fuel is not going down a lot lower anytime soon either. So, although I am NOT a fan of AC management, I see them as being squeezed as well as making dumb moves. Not only does ridership decline every time they raise fares or cut service, but they have taught a generation that transit cannot be relied on. In the 90s they sold a bus purchase option to Muni because AC didn’t need more buses for less service. More recently, within a year of purchse of the first Van Hools, again, AC had excess fleet resulting in 29 of the VHs going to DC.
Not a sustainable picture.

By: markko

markko — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:33:27 +0000

@drunk engineer, as a matter of fact, i have done those comparisons. a couple of things that you need to be aware of: economies of scale are very elusive in public transit; on the whole, larger operators tend to be *less* efficient than smaller ones (though they tend to be more *productive*) due (most likely) to stronger unions and weaker management as agency size increases. see, for example, on page 13 of the same document (labeled p 10), the chart titled Cost Efficiency by Operator. you’ll note that $/rev hour increases roughly with the size of the operator, and that AC (and Muni, VTA, and Golden Gate) are well above the average of bus operators (you have to eyeball the average of bus operators, for some reason MTC displays an average that includes rail and ferry modes). so, yeah, AC is up there with the other big bus operators. is that okay? does that mean that those people who depend upon AC for their transportation needs shouldn’t hold AC accountable for delivering more service with the dollars that they do have? in my view, this isn’t even a close call. In 2003, it cost AC $120 to run a bus for an hour. By 2007, it was up to $175/hour (or $150 if you factor out inflation). In 2009, it’s even higher. and of the roughly 2 dozen bay area bus operators, only 3 have higher costs. it’s totally fair to criticize MTC, BART, and the state for decisions that make AC’s life and finances more difficult, but we’re making a big mistake by pretending that AC is perfect and has no room to improve on its own.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:35:46 +0000

Cal Supremes refuse to reverse Appellate decision that State Transit funds were illegally stolen from transit agencies by the state. Will be interesting to see if the “embezzled” funds actually come to the transit agencies.

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:02:48 +0000

markko: AC Transit annual performance figures are published in the National Transit database (you can google it). Compare to any other large US bus transit operator in the database and you will be hard pressed to find any operator that is more efficient. AC compares favorably even against NYC and Muni, which have much greater economies of scale.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:32:14 +0000

Anyone wishing a sample of ‘suburban attitude toward Oakland transit issues should sample Bart Rage where posts regularly suggest abandonment of BART stations in Oakland, 16th & Mission etc. This from people who use stations with a quarter or less the ridership of those they want to close. No tinfoil hat, just plain speaking.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:44:14 +0000

@david vartanoff : “The “swap” (embezzlement is closer) of Dumbarton Rail’s $91 million from RM2 to beef up the Warm Springs Trojan Horse is merely the most recent. [...] They are interested in commuter service for the briefcase crowd and sanitized airport access.”

This is exactly why I think V isn’t being (unnecessarily) paranoid about what’s going to happen to the RM2 funding for BRT if ACT creates a disconnect between the RM2 and CMAQ fund buckets for the project. There’s not a sense for an urgent need for buses through Oakland (and the inner East Bay) because — as I’ve speculated with respect to the OAC — the largest issue fueling why this elevated, expensive, impractical connector is so damned important is mostly because people from the burbs don’t want to HAVE to take a bus through Oakland.

Taking off the tinfoil hat, I’m glad to see AC Transit proceeding reasonably on this, because as we have seen with other recent funding deluges, the way to really attract funding to a project is to have it as close to “shovel-ready” as possible — at the very least, well planned and funded as much as possible. Keeping the planning going, and having a chunk of money ready to implement the plan is critical, I think, in keeping the BRT project attractive for outside funds.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:04:12 +0000

Is there a report out there that documents the MTC’s successes and failures?

By: Barry K.

Barry K. — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:03:38 +0000

SALARY SCHEDULE:
MTC management employees are paid on the basis of an adopted Executive/ Management salary schedule.
THE FOLLOWING ARE AMONG THE BENEFITS OFFERED TO MANAGEMENT STAFF OF MTC:

• Health Benefits Insurance through the Public Employees’ Retirement System (100% MTC-paid employee and dependent coverage).
• Agency-paid Dental Insurance (dependent coverage shared by the employee and MTC).
• Agency-paid Vision Care Insurance, employees only (no dependent coverage).
• Agency-paid Life, AD&D, and Long Term Disability Insurance.
• Eleven paid holidays per year.
• One day per month paid vacation leave; for each year of service, an additional day per year is granted to a maximum of 25 days per year.
• One day per month paid sick leave, with no limit to the amount of sick leave that can be accumulated.
• Personal Business leave; up to three (3) days per year depending upon date of hire.
• Monthly Transit/Parking Subsidy.
• Public Employees Retirement System (PERS); employee contributes a portion of gross salary on a pre-tax basis.
• Alternative payroll savings plans (tax-deferred deferred compensation plans, two credit unions).
• Voluntary participation in employee-paid pre-tax dependent care and flexible spending accounts;
• Supplemental life insurance

For non-management employees, see pages 4-5
***Annual 2.5% merit pay increase!****

http://sftma.org/media/403-Fin$20JrFinAnalyst_Jan.09.pdf

By: markko

markko — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:23:34 +0000

v, if you want to know the real reason that AC is in such a massive financial hole, in spite of the voter approved parcel tax to support their operations, take a look at page 17 (numbered p 14) of this document http://www.mtc.ca.gov/library/statsum/StatSummary08.pdf and pay particular attention to the chart titled “Cost Efficiency – Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour”. Multiply the increased per-hour cost by the number of revenue hours and you’re looking at an amount of money that AC is throwing away due to poor management and giveaway union contracts.

By: Former Berkeleyan

Former Berkeleyan — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:18:02 +0000

Thanks for posting this. It’s really upsetting to see this happening to a project that has been in the works for so long, particularly since it has so much potential to improve the east bay’s transit system. perspective on the MTC was also insightful… thanks for doing the work you do.