Stimulating the economy by building transit

If you are interested in improving transit and moving our nation away from its car-centric development focus, visit Transportation for America at t4america.org.

Transportation for America is made up of a growing and diverse coalition focused on creating a national transportation program that will take America into the 21st century by building a modernized infrastructure and healthy communities where people can live, work and play.

Work is ongoing in Washington to develop a real stimulus package that would generate jobs by accelerating the construction of transit projects around the country.

Former Sacramento Regional Transit General Manager Beverly Scott, who today is general manager of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority and the current chair of the American Public Transportation Association, testified yesterday (Oct. 29) before the House Committee On Transportation And Infrastructure.

In the testimony she offers a number of facts about transit and its role in the community that more people need to hear about:

• Every $1 communities invest in public transportation generates approximately $6 in economic returns.
• Last year, 10.3 billion trips were taken on U.S. public transportation – the highest number of trips taken in 50 years.
• Public transportation use is up 32 percent since 1995, a figure that is more than double the growth rate of the population (13 percent) and up substantially over the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on our nation’s highways (24 percent) for that same period.
• Transit ridership grew by more than 5.2 percent in the second quarter of 2008, while the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has reported that the vehicle miles traveled on our nation’s roads declined by 3.3 percent.
• On average, a transit user saves more than $9,499 per year by taking public transportation instead of driving.
• In a typical two-adult, two-car household where both adults commute separately by car, if one adult switches a 20-mile total round-trip commute to existing public transportation, that adult's annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will fall by 4,800 pounds per year, equal to a 10 percent reduction in all greenhouse gases produced by members of the household.
• If a two-car family does without one of the cars and takes public transportation, walks or rides bicycles instead, the family can realize a savings of up to 30 percent in carbon dioxide emissions. This is more CO2 savings than if that household went without electricity.
  
• By reducing travel and congestion on roadways and supporting more efficient land use patterns, transit saves the U.S. 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year, the equivalent of more than 11 million gallons per day. That amount of savings is equivalent to oil refined from 102 supertankers, or more than three times the amount of oil we import from Kuwait each year.

You can read her testimony here.

I heartily endorse Dr. Scott's concluding statement:

An investment in public transit is – the single “best bet” that we can place as a nation.

"Park District" funding for transit

Just a reminder that Sacramento Regional Transit "continues its outreach effort for the Transit Master Plan (TMP) -- a new Transit Vision for the next 30 years -- by hosting eight community workshops throughout the Sacramento region."

The first one is tonight at Rusch Park Auditorium, 7801 Auburn Boulevard, Citrus Heights, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

These seminars are supposed to focus on "funding elements" of the plan. It's hard to imagine anything realistic coming out of this when the district hasn't been able to find a way to fund its current limited operations. The impact of the economic downturn, which cut sales tax revenue, and the governor's theft of transit money two years in a row will force RT to raise fares. The question of when fares will increase will be decided at the board meeting Oct. 27.

Can RT think outside the box on funding? Can it see beyond another sales tax hike?

I'd like to see the district and its board -- a board, by the way, composed of representatives of every local government in RT's service area -- adopt what I'll call the "Park District" approach to funding.

Sacramento County residents will be familiar with the idea of funding parks and recreation with benefit assessment districts. People served by the parks pay an annual fee to pay to maintain and improve parks. That's what RT needs, but with a special twist.

Instead of raising money from an assessment to property taxes, as a park district does, RT's "Park District" should assess a fee on each parking space in its service area.

Businesses would be expected to pass this fee on to people who use the parking lots. In fact, businesses should be encouraged to do so. Don't want to pay the extra cost to park? Ride the bus.

Unlike sales tax revenue, which rises and falls with the economy, or state funding, which can't be guaranteed, a fee applied to parking spaces would establish a firm foundation from which to plan a transit system worthy of the name.

The remaining meetings are scheduled for:

City of Rancho Cordova,
American River North Room
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Wednesday, October 15
6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Samuel Pannell Meadowview Community Center
2450 Meadowview Road, Sacramento
Tuesday, October 21
6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

City of Folsom Community Center
52 Natoma Street
Thursday, October 23
6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

South Natomas Community Center
2921 Truxel Road, Sacramento
Tuesday, October 28
6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Tsakopoulos Library Galleria,
East Meeting Room
828 I Street, Sacramento
Thursday, October 30
5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Carmichael Park,
Community Clubhouse
5750 Grant Avenue
Thursday, November 6
6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

City of Elk Grove Council Chambers
8400 Laguna Palms Way
Thursday, November 13
6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Chatting with Sacramento Regional Transit

News from RT:

The Sacramento Regional Transit District on Friday conducts its first live online chat from noon to 1 p.m. with RT general manager Mike Wiley.

Wiley will host a monthly online “Transit Talk with the General Manager.” The chats typically will take place on the first Friday of the month at www.sacrt.com, giving the public an opportunity to interact directly with Wiley, ask transit-related questions and get immediate feedback.

“RT’s new online chat is another opportunity to communicate with our riders and to keep them informed,” Wiley said, in a news release.

The first session will cover general transit questions. Future sessions will focus on specific topics, such as the Transit Master Plan.

No registration is required to participate. Questions will be accepted two hours before the session, and through the end of the live chat.

That's not a lot of warning, but this is a good time to have a chat with Mike.

I've been trying since the budget was signed to find out what the damage was for RT. The district had been saying that if the governor got his way, there would be fare hikes and other pain. During the budget stalemate, the Democrats were promising that they wouldn't let the governor take as much money as he wanted from transit, but then they caved.

Mike Wiley finally got back to me yesterday:

RT stated all along that the Governor's proposal would reduce RT funding by an additional $11.3 million on top of the $7 million we previously assumed. That is exactly what happened. We lost a total of $18.3 million plus any additional spill-over from higher gas prices for FY 09. That amounts to approximately 12.2 % of our FY 09 operating budget. Yes we are going to our Board for final action on a fare increase and other things on 10/27, to plug the $11.3 million hole.

Here are the questions I will pose if I have an opportunity to take part in this chat:

I realize that fare hikes are your only near-term option, but has the district considered some of the longer term options for capturing the value of transit: an assessment district for operating expenses; tax-increment financing for new projects such as the DNA and south line extension; joint development efforts similar to the Greenbriar DNA station; assessing fees against development projects with sprawl-inducing projects paying more?

A mix of those might help RT secure reliable operating revenue that isn't as easily disrupted by downturns in the economy. Of course, those options would require that RT's board return to their respective local governments and work to help RT. Why don't we see that happening?

Carless and carefree

Let's imagine. Let's pretend today was unexceptional.

This morning I walked out of my front door and next door to my bus stop. I boarded the bus and took out my book and read as bus lumbered along. At Sacramento State, I got off the bus and after a short wait boarded a bus headed downtown to the Amtrak station. Again I read my book, immersed in a tale of Sherman's march through Georgia.

The bus arrived at the Amtrak station on time, and I walked to the train platform. The Amtrak train soon rolled into the station, its horn blaring and bells clanging, the ground rumbling with the throbbing of the massive engine. I boarded a car and found an empty table and sat down. I got out my laptop and plugged it into the power outlet and got down to work. At one point I got up and walked to the dining car, where I bought a cup of coffee and a discounted $10 BART pass for a total of $9.50.

At Oakland's Jack London Square I got off the Amtrak train and walked to Webster Street and headed downtown. Once I crossed under Interstate 880 I was in Chinatown. This is my favorite part of my morning commute. Oakland's Chinatown isn't as touristy as San Francisco's. It's more like a real community. This morning, like every morning, I stopped at one of the street-side fresh produce stands and purchased fruit for lunch and for the trip home. I then walked to a coffee shop that prides itself on being owned and operated by Oakland residents who are doing all things good for the planet. I purchased a French-press cup of coffee and walked next door to my office.

At noon, two of my co-workers and I walked across the street to a nearby outdoor mall and had lunch. When we finished we walked back to the office.

Later in the afternoon, my boss spoke at the Sustainable Communities conference at the Westin St. Francis in San Francisco. I took BART from my office to the Powell Street station and then walked up the hill three blocks to the hotel.

One point from my boss's speech stuck out for me. If we just met the existing demand for walkable communities joined by effective transit systems, she told the gathering, we could reach our goals to reduce our reliance on oil and lower our impact on global warming.

On the BART ride back to the office I rolled that idea over in my head: Just listening to what many people are already saying they want and making it possible for builders and local governments to meet those needs would have transformational effects.

It's not hard to imagine. How nice it would be if everyday could be as carless and carefree.

Building on the human scale

Something to think about . . .

Help save traffic? If only we had this problem or the solution

In the news: Getting on Track: Good Investments for Pennsylvania’s Public Transit System. Substitute "California" for Pennsylvania and it sounds too familiar. That is until you get to: "Pennsylvania took the first step to addressing its long-term transit needs with the creation of a dedicated state funding source for transit in 2007. Thanks to this new funding source, SEPTA announced plans this August to expand service ..."

The governor's attack on transit funding is taking California in the opposite direction.

The cost of free parking

The American Public Transportation Association has released its monthly analysis of the benefits of riding transit and declares: "Even With Declining Gas Prices, Public Transit Users Save $9,596 Per Household Annually, Up $411 From Last Year."

If only it were true in Sacramento.

The problem is that a major part of this "savings" is based on the cost of parking.

"On average, according to the 2008 Colliers International Parking Rate Study, the national average for the monthly unreserved parking rate in a city’s downtown business district is $143. Over the course of a year, parking costs alone can amount to an average of $1,720."

Yes, there are lots in downtown Sacramento that charge that much: 6th and H streets is $175 monthly; the City Hall garage, $155; Capitol Garage at 10th and L,$180; and Downtown Plaza East Garage, $145.

But all of the other downtown lots charge less than $145. And the city even offers solo commuters special deals. The Old Sacramento parking garage offers people who arrive before 7:30 a.m. and leave after 5:30 p.m., a flat $4 fee all day. In addition, major employers within easy reach of transit in midtown and downtown provide employees free parking. The Sacramento Bee comes to mind. And I won't even bring up the acres and acres of free parking sprawling around the office parks of Rancho Cordova.

No, in Sacramento the price of parking is seldom a motivation to ride transit.

Here's my idea: The state should assess a fee on all parking spaces. The money raised from such a statewide fee would be used to provide a stable source of operating revenue for transit agencies. The money raised could also provide local governments with money to improve sidewalks and bike trails.

Free parking is not free. Everyone suffers from the congestion and pollution generated by solo-vehicle trips. With stable funding for transit, the service could be expanded to truly serve the needs of everyone. And everyone would benefit from such a transit system.

Growing a transit lifestyle in barren soil

Riding Amtrak to Oakland today I started reading "Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel." The report on research findings was produced by the Transit Cooperative Research Program, which includes the Oakland-based Center for Transit-Oriented Development.

The document contains a number of findings applicable to Sacramento Regional Transit, none of which were particularly encouraging when one considers the state of RT service today and the dimming prospects for improvements in the near future.

For instance, the general consensus is that transit service headways of 10 minutes are ideal to support a transit lifestyle. None of RT's service runs that quickly, and only a handful of bus routes run every 15 minutes. A transit lifestyle grown in that soil will be stunted at best. Much of Sacramento's suburban expanse is a transit-oriented wasteland.

"A generally accepted service level threshold for (transit-oriented developments) is headways of 15 minutes or less during most of the day. It makes little sense to build TOD in places that receive only hourly bus service, as service is not frequent enough to make transit use convenient."

One interesting fact gleaned from the report was the finding that off-peak service improvements can improve ridership by as much as the increase in gasoline prices.

"In Portland, for instance, TriMet has pursued a strategy of improving off-peak bus service in its most dense and mixed use (i.e., TOD-like) corridors to expand its non-work trip market. From FY 99 to FY 03, TriMet improved service on 10 lines to “Frequent Service” (15 minutes or less all day, every day). On the improved lines, TriMet experienced a 9% increase in overall ridership, whereas ridership generally remained level for routes with only nominal increases in frequency. For the frequent lines, weekday ridership increased 8%, Saturday ridership increased 14%, and Sunday ridership increased 21%. Frequent bus service now accounts for 45% of weekly bus hours and 57% of weekly bus rides."

Imagine the ridership RT could have in today's high-fuel-cost environment if it had money to run buses later and more frequently. If nothing else, RT could start treating midtown as the nightspot it has become. Keeping the No. 30 and 31 running every 15 minutes all night on the weekends while extending outlying bus service past midnight would be a dream come true for people who want to leave their cars at home.

People need to spare the air but RT can't spare the fare

Tomorrow, August 14, is a Spare The Air day.

Transit in Placer County -- Auburn Transit, Lincoln Transit, Placer County Transit and Roseville Transit -- is free tomorrow.

Yolo Bus and UNITRANS are free tomorrow.

El Dorado Transit is free.

Even transit on the North Natomas TMA shuttle is free.

But not at Sacramento Regional Transit.

Yes, yes -- RT has been hit two years in a row with state transit funding cuts and it would cost much more for RT to offer free rides.

But, still, has RT even tried?

According the Placer County transit Web site:

"In cooperation with the public transit operators in Placer County, the City of Roseville, and with funding provided by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, the Spare the Air campaign offers two incentive programs: "Spare the Air: Free Fare" and "Spare the Air for Bucks." Spare the Air: Free Fare: On all designated Spare the Air days in the Sacramento Region this summer, you can ride any fixed-route or commuter bus service in Placer County for FREE! Spare the Air for Bucks: Those who carpool, vanpool, bike, walk, take the bus or train, and telecommute to work can win monthly CASH and PRIZES!"

In Yolo County, the Spare the Air free rides are paid for by a grant from the Federal Transit Administration.

According to the Yolobus Web site:

"The grant to YOLOBUS of $62,290 will cover up to 24 free-ride days and is part of an effort by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), the Yolo County Transportation District, and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District to help the region avoid violating clean-air standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

Free transit -- sort of

For the price of two classes at American River College, I now have free transit until the end of the year. And, as it turns out, I could have received the pass for the price of just one class.

This raises a very interesting point about the concept of free transit. At the meeting of the Sacramento Regional Transit District board on July 28, the idea was briefly touched upon in the board's discussion and quickly discarded.

But it's not as far fetched as it sounds. According to the "RT Fact Sheets" at RT's Web site, the district's operating budget is $147.7 million. Last year, RT anticipated just 21 percent of its operating expenses would be covered by the fares riders pay.

In other words, if the community saw the value of transit and agreed that providing transit was a worthy goal -- a goal on a par with trash collection or street maintenance or park programs -- it would cost less than $32 million in new taxes each year to make transit free in Sacramento. That's less than $16 a year per person for the 2.1 million residents served by RT. That is less money than RT currently receives from local sales taxes.

If the county and the cities in the region taxed "free" parking, everyone could have free transit.

Calculating transit's value

The American Public Transportation Association is out with a new report that details the personal savings pocketed by transit riders.

"According to APTA’s “Monthly Transit Savings Report” a person can save an average of $672 dollars per month based on today’s gas price of $3.909 as reported by AAA. The savings are more than the average household pays for food in a year."

You can calculate your savings at www.publictransportation.org.

My former commute to midtown -- 22 miles roundtrip, free parking at work (a benefit I think should be taxed), a minivan with an mpg of 20 (best case scenario, but not realistic) -- calculates a savings of just $262.70 for the year if I were to pay Sacramento Regional Transit full fare.

Of course, the monthly pass can bring the savings up, but it is easy to see why people who weigh just the cost of gasoline to get from home to work and back don't see Sacramento Regional Transit as an especially good value. When RT raises fares next year, which appears unavoidable, it will be even less attractive.

Not even once a week

At last night's hearing, a speaker asked how many Sacramento Regional Transit board members actually use the transit system they govern. Only one board member was willing to respond. Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn said he "occasionally" uses it. Even when prodded by a crank in the audience, none of the other board members spoke up. Instead, Board Chair Roberta MacGlashan said the question was out of order.

I can sympathize with the board. It must be hard to sit in judgment of a service they don't use and won't promise to use, even for just one day a week.

Back on Feb. 17 I sent the following e-mail to Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo and each of the RT board members:

On Feb. 12, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa boarded a bus to work with a gaggle of press following along. He was promoting a local drive to get people to make a commitment to ride transit once a week.

"If I said to everybody, `Get out of your car and take public transit,' the likelihood of people doing that isn't great," Villaraigosa told the Los Angeles Daily News.* "So the goal is: Get out of your car once a week. I want to model that."

According to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District**, "If you leave your car at home one day a week, you prevent 55 pounds of pollution each year from being emitted into our air."

Would you be willing to make a public commitment to leave your car at home and ride transit at least once a week?

John Hughes
http://rtrider.blogspot.com
* Story is available at http://origin.dailynews.com/news/ci_8245023
** see http://www.sparetheair.com for SMAQMD stat

And what response did I get?

from Patrick Hume
to jlhughes@gmail.com
date Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 6:53 PM
subject Re: Riding transit once a week
mailed-by elkgrovecity.org

Mr. Hughes,

Unfortunately, even once a week isn't feasable for me. I live in Elk Grove and work in Galt, so there is no convenient public transit alternative. You may suggest the same idea to Mayor Davis, he works at Sac State, so it would take some transferring, but it could be done.


Thanks,
Pat

Patrick Hume
Councilmember, City of Elk Grove
Phume@elkgrovecity.org. (916)201-4091

(I responded: "Thanks for replying. Perhaps you could look into the Highway 99 e-Tran service from Elk Grove to Galt City Hall. http://www.e-tran.org/downtown-sacramento.htm.")

from David M. Sander, Ph.D.
to John Hughes
date Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:09 PM
subject Re: Riding transit once a week
signed-by ix.netcom.com

John:

I'd be happy to make such a pledge, but living in Rancho Cordova, I don't have much in the way of bus service -- none to my current neighborhood.

Also, I work from home, so by definition I don't drive that many miles, nor do have any regular commute.

So, I could take such a pledge, but I'm not sure what it would mean in the end. I already use transit when I can use light rail to get to and from occasional meetings downtown.

All the Best,

David

(I replied: "Thanks for the reply. It does make it difficult to take transit when you work at home. I was thinking of expanding the pledge idea to promising to take transit OR ride a bike OR walk. The goal, after all, is cut down on the single-occupant auto trips. You'd have it made with pledge to walk to work." And he said, " Yeah. It's about 25 ft from bedroom to office! I've had fun with that concept -- appearing at bike to work events and the like over years I've always explained that I'd like to bike to work, but that hallway turn near the bathroom is tough to navigate.")

from MacGlashan. Roberta
to John Hughes
date Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM
subject RE: Riding transit once a week
mailed-by saccounty.net

John, Thank you for emailing me regarding Mayor Villaraigosa’s efforts to increase transit ridership. I wish my response could be as clever as David’s.

Public transit works very well for people whose jobs follow a regular schedule. I grew up in a single-car household with a mother who did not drive, so I relied on transit, walking and bicycling to get where I needed to go as a child and young adult. In fact, I did not even have a drivers license or own a car until I was in my 20s. When my husband was in law school, we also had just one car and for those three years I rode public transit to work (that was the old Southern Pacific line on the San Francisco peninsula – now CalTrain).

The reality of my schedule as a County Supervisor is that my schedule requires me to be at many different meetings throughout my district and downtown in the course of the day and often into the evenings (with unpredictable schedule changes) – making transit an impractical option for me most of the time. However, 2 of the 4 members of my staff use public transit daily to commute to and from the office; it is very rare that they drive to work. I am very proud of the high utilization of public transit by my staff, and believe that my office probably has the highest transit use of any of the Sacramento County Board offices.

Good luck with your new job.*


Roberta MacGlashan

(* When MacGlashan first responded she asked: "John, Did we meet at a Bee editorial board meeting on the Transit Master Plan? Am I remembering correctly?" To which I replied, "John the blogger is not the same as John at the editorial board, at least not any longer. Cutbacks at The Bee have moved me to a new job. My e-mail to you is strictly a personal query related to my rtrider blog. The e-mail was in no way work related. The best response so far comes from David Sander, who works at home. He's willing to promise to walk to work, but riding a bike is problematic -- "hallway turn near the bathroom is tough to navigate.")

from Lauren Hammond
to John Hughes
date Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:26 PM
subject Re: Riding RT once a week
mailed-by cityofsacramento.org


John,

You're behind. I suggested this eight years ago when I was Chair of
the Sacramento Air Quality Board.

Frankly, I don't drive once a week. I live more than 3/4 of a mile
from light rail and 1/2 mile from the nearest bus stop.
If the public doesn't mind me not attending two thirds of the meetings
and functions I'm currently scheduled for.

Thanks

Lauren

(I never did really understand what "If the public doesn't mind me not attending two thirds of the meetings and functions I'm currently scheduled for" meant since it followed "Frankly, I don't drive once a week.")

from Dickinson. Roger
to John Hughes
date Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:00 PM
subject RE: Riding RT once a week
mailed-by saccounty.net

Thanks for your email, John. Prior to my election to the Board, I was a regular transit rider, generally two to three times a week. I still use transit when I can; however, that is not as frequently as I would like. Since I often take a large amount of material home at night to read and have numerous daytime and evening meetings, it makes it difficult to use transit on a regular basis. Nonetheless, I will take a look at my schedule in the upcoming months to see if I can increase my use of transit, even if I can't get to a routine of once a week.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County

None of the other board members felt that it was necessary to respond. There silence speaks volumes.

Scared silly

Anita Adams is old enough to earn one of Sacramento Regional Transit's lifetime passes. "They wait until you have one foot in the grave," she explained as we waited for tonight's hearing to start.

I met Adams on 29th Street between Q and P streets. I was heading toward RT's auditorium at its headquarters at 29th and N streets. Adams was shuffling slowly toward the light rail station. She looked frail and unsteady with her cane.

As our paths crossed, she asked me, "Where's N Street?"

"It's behind you," I said, pointing.

"There's a big hearing at RT about service cuts and fare hikes tonight," she said in answer to my unasked question. "Lots of people are going to be there."

Fifty-two people signed up to speak before the board. When the hearing started at 6 p.m., it was standing room only in the small auditorium, with at least four television stations represented. Of course, the TV cameras were long gone by the time folks in the audience got their chance to speak.

RT Board Chair Roberta MacGlashan called out, "Anita Adams." When MacGlashan didn't see any movement, she called the name again. "I'm coming," Adams said. She waved her cane as she struggled to get up from her chair in the audience.

Adams suggested to the board that perhaps they were moving too fast on the plans to cut back service and increase fares.

"We're going to have a new administration in Washington soon," she explained. "It's going to get better."

But when she suggested that perhaps the planned extensions of light rail be delayed just until the federal government starts sending more money, Mr. Light Rail, Roger Dickinson, was quick to get staff to explain that money set aside for capital improvements can't be used for operating expenses. Many in the crowd found the distinction between capital and operating expenses hard to understand.

Of course, the crowd was already suffering from a certain handicap. It seems that Paratransit gave several customers free rides to the meeting after telling them that RT was planning to increase Paratransit fares to $6.

After the third or fourth speaker mentioned the "planned" Paratransit fare hike, the board was clearly confused at where this was all coming from. The board stopped the testimony and had RT General Manager Mike Wiley explain that the staff suggestion was to eliminate the free ride Paratransit-qualified riders get on buses and trains, not to increase the $4 Paratransit fare. In the course of that explanation, however, Wiley mentioned that RT was prohibited from charging more than twice the basic fare for Paratransit.

Ah, ha! the Paratransit crowd murmured. And Wiley had to admit that the proposed increase in basic fares would open the door to consideration of a Paratransit fare increase. But when Wiley asked the board if they wanted staff to pursue that option, he was quickly told not to go there.

Unfortunately, the whole hearing, at least the public input portion of it, suffered from the scare tactics that RT had employed as it banged on pots and pans and tried to get everyone's attention. The July Next Stop News flyer's suggestion that ALL routes would be affected by service cutbacks had many people at the podium defending routes that would never be on RT's list of changes.

On the train ride home, I rode with a mother from Rosemont who had brought her two high-school-age children to testify in defense of the buses they take to school. She too takes the bus to work. She's a teacher, and she is a choice rider. She's even trying to take the bus to run errands.

RT had wanted to manufacture alarm in the hope of motivating riders to get involved, to write letters, to appreciate the severity of the threat. But somewhere a line was crossed.

RT faces real problems, and if the state were to adopt cuts on a level originally proposed by the governor, big fare hikes and real service reductions would follow. But the Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate have tentatively agreed to cuts of less than half what the governor proposed. Yes, there will likely be fare increases, but the horror tales of ending weekend bus service or shutting down the trains at 8 p.m. just aren't going to happen.

Crying wolf got everyone's attention. But what happens when the real wolf shows up?

Transit-oriented planning in a car-centered world

I've been corresponding with a visitor who lives in an area of Santa Clara outside the convenient reach of transit. I certainly sympathize. Outside of certain corridors, that's the story of most of Sacramento.

In a perfect world, there would be more transit-oriented communities. That's not just better bus and train service. It's the ability to get around without a car, whether that's walking to a neighborhood store, biking to a regional park or taking the bus to work.

The problem, of course, is that we live in the world we created, not one we wish we had. The sprawl of the last half of the 20th century guarantees a painful future as we cope with the changing economics of $4-plus gasoline. But that same pain will move us toward the solution.

The first street cars were built by companies seeking to bring customers to their businesses or to the homes they had built on the edge of the city. The profit motive was the engine of change. Yes, it would be nice if the world were inhabited with people who willingly subsumed their personal needs to the greater community good, but, again, we live in a world we created.

Perhaps if we make the cause today to make the world less dependent on automobiles, we will reach that new world. Just wanting to go there is a start. As more people call for better noncar ways to get around -- better sidewalks, more bike lanes, improved transit -- the profit motive will start to attract the people who can build those communities where jobs and homes and schools and parks are all within reach without needing to drive.

In the interim, incremental improvements in service will be more likely if more people are clamoring for change.

Tonight, Sacramento Regional Transit will be discussing how it will cope with pending state funding cutbacks. Keeping the focus on the future will pull us through today's short-term problem. It is important that service reductions be avoided. Even if that means some people will have to pay more to ride.

Money and influence

Down in Elk Grove, the City Council is deciding what to do about the transit system it buys from MV Transportation in Fairfield. As The Bee explained back on July 19:

When the city of Elk Grove unveiled its new transit buses four years ago, it laid claim to the nation's only all-hybrid municipal commuter fleet.

Then came the bus fires.

Now the 21-bus gasoline-electric hybrid fleet costing $10 million is sidelined, and the city is suing the manufacturers and other transit-related contractors for breach of contract.

Among the complaints: at least four bus fires, some 30 catastrophic engine failures, noxious exhaust fumes inside buses and buses unable to achieve freeway speeds with full passenger loads.

Now it's clear that e-tran, the city's transit agency, is destined for change. Elk Grove City Council members say they need to raise fares and increase scrutiny of the city's transit contract.

In the next few months, they will consider cutting ties with transit operator MV Transportation Inc. of Fairfield when its contract ends June 30. MV is one of six defendants named in the city's May 20 lawsuit.

One course of action to be considered, according to staff, was returning to Sacramento Regional Transit. Given RT's current fiscal mess caused by state funding uncertainty, the idea does seem a stretch. And then there is Elk Grove's history with RT. There's a reason Elk Grove decided to go it alone rather than rely on a distant agency to meet its transit needs.

So it wasn't surprising at all when, on July 24, a majority of the Elk Grove City Council members said the option of returning to RT was a nonstarter.

"My point of view is going to RT is like going back to the Dark Ages," Councilwoman Sophia Scherman said. She was joined by Councilmen Jim Cooper and Michael Leary.

But is there something else involved? ElkGroveNews.net suggests maybe there is.

The Sunday, July 27, post reveals "Scherman’s 5,000 reasons not to return to the ‘Dark Ages’."

According to Scherman's campaign Web site, her top donors include MV Transportation, which gave a hefty $5,000.

Very interesting, indeed.

Transitarian comics

Found this in the July 26 paper:


It's not surprising that someone giving up a car and riding transit, all in the pursuit of going green, would be dismissed as someone hiding their true intentions. Still, the day will come.

First one, then another, and pretty soon . . .

Making ends meet at Sacramento Regional Transit

The staff at Sacramento Regional Transit has set the stage for an important discussion Monday over how the district will absorb expected state reductions in operating funding. Among the proposals sure to bring crowds to the board meeting is the elimination of free bus and light rail rides for Paratransit-qualified residents. Instead, they would have to pay the same 50-percent discount as students and seniors.

Without a state budget, RT can't predict exactly how much it will have to cut to make ends meet this year. The cuts proposed by the governor had RT looking at a shortfall of $11.3 million. Thankfully, a compromise is in the works in the Legislature. According to RT General Manager Mike Wiley in his report to the district board, "If the compromise budget is approved as written, RT will experience an operating shortfall of $4.8 million in (state) revenue in (fiscal year) 2008-2009."

That $4.8 million is much better than $11.3 million, but it is still a big hole to fill. Making things harder is the fact that the easy cuts were made last year, when state funding was reduced $14 million below what RT had budgeted. Making ends meet last year required cuts in service. RT wants to do everything possible to avoid more service cuts.

"Staff firmly believes and agrees that RT is in the business of providing service and not cutting service," Wiley told the board.

The one spot of good news in the report is the estimate that the increase in ridership generated by higher gasoline prices and the Interstate 5 fix have brought in about $1.1 million more in fare revenue than the district had budgeted.

That will help, but something else will have to give and first on Wiley's list of options for the board is the elimination of the Paratransit Group Pass.

"The group pass originated to provide a lower cost alternative for Paratransit eligible riders and their qualified care givers," Wiley explains. "The cost of riders to ride Paratransit is now $4, although the cost to RT is $60 per ride."

Anecdotal evidence cited by Wiley suggests that many people apply for Paratransit eligibility just so they can get the free RT pass.

A staff survey of transportation agencies found the free ride option is unusual. "Of the 20 transit agencies surveyed," according to Wiley, "only two, besides RT, offer free ridership."

As Wiley points out, while charging $1 is a big hike from a free ride, it is still a substantial discount from the $4 Paratransit charge.

Making Paratransit-qualified riders pay the same fare as the elderly will generate about $1.1 million in new revenue.

Another proposal that many will find annoying is the addition of a parking fee at light rail park-and-ride lots. Wiley is proposing a $1 to $2 fee, with the $2 option his preferred choice. Wiley estimates the $2 fee would generate $1.1 million, assuming a midyear start.

Wiley and his staff have found some staffing cuts, areas that he admits will cause morale problems, and a couple of options for stringing out how the district funds its pension. (This will not affect the actual pension benefits.)

And, finally, there's proposed fare increases. The staff has put together four scenarios. At one end, riders would see basic fares rising to $2.25, daily passes to $5.50 and the monthly pass going to $95. At the other extreme, basic fares would increase to $2.50, the daily pass to $6.25 and the monthly pass to $106.

Putting all of this together, Wiley offers two examples of how this could play out.

If the district needs to raise $5.3 million, RT could do that with the extra money from increased ridership, the end of Paratransit free rides, reduced staffing levels, a modest shift in the pension contributions and the smallest of the proposed fare increases.

If the state doesn't come through and RT has to make up for a cut of $11.8 million, then the real pain will happen. In addition to the other stuff, RT would institute the parking fee, increase the fares to the highest option, make an even more drastic adjustment to the pension contributions and reduce bus and light rail service enough to scrap together $6.6 million per year to achieve $3.3 million in fiscal year 2009. Wiley provides a number of ways to cut service to raise this money. (See this press release.)

It's time for more of those letters to lawmakers telling them the importance of transit and the reason why it should remain a priority for the state. The alternative is just too bleak to consider.

* * *

The public hearing will be held July 28 at 6 p.m. in the RT Auditorium located at 1400 29th Street (at N Street).

What will it take to get you out of your car?

The current issue of the Sacramento News and Review has an excellent article What will it take to get you out of your car? The cover article does a nice job of merging the current situation with Sacramento Regional Transit's ongoing work on revising the Regional Transit Master Plan. Although there's nothing really new, the article is a valuable in-depth assessment of the local transit scene.

The transit glass half-full

Today, The Field Poll released results of a survey of how Californians are coping with higher gas prices.

"The steady unrelenting rise in gasoline prices is seen as an increasingly serious problem in this state and has caused two in three Californians (68%) to cut back on their spending in other areas," according to the poll. "Many motorists are employing a variety of gas saving measures, such as driving less (78%), buying lower grades of gasoline (67%), and using their more fuel efficient vehicle (59%). Smaller proportions also say they are carpooling more (28%), employees are taking jobs closer to their home or moving closer to their worksite (28%) or adjusting work hours so they are not commuting to the worksite as often (25%). Others report having replaced a car or truck with a more fuel-efficient vehicle (27%)."

And the least popular answer to the pinch of high gas prices: Riding transit.

At least that's how The Bee and pollster Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, pitched the results.

According to The Bee:

But most Californians say they’ll remain in their own cars. Only 17 percent say they take public transit more often and 28 percent say they are carpooling to work.

"We’re pretty much a society that was built around the automobile," DiCamillo said. "If Californians had their druthers, they would like to change the mix to hybrids or electric cars or something else. But I don’t see any evidence Californians really want to get out of their vehicles. It’s just too impractical."

So the glass is half-empty, maybe more if you are really attached to your Hummer or convinced that driving yourself everywhere is the very definition of independence. But from a tranistarian perspective, the poll results can just as easily be cheered.

The glass is half-full, or more precisely nearly a third full.

The Field Poll compares today's responses to those from 2005.

In 2005, the Field Poll found 13 percent of respondents riding transit. Three years later, 17 percent are riding.

In 2005, the number considering using transit was 9 percent. Today, 14 percent are considering using transit.

Where 22 percent were riding or thinking about using transit in 2005, we now have 31 percent.

Of course, it's the half-empty crowd that is ruining the party this year as record gas prices prompt record transit ridership. This is especially true in California's capital.

Today should be the best of times for Sacramento Regional Transit, a golden opportunity to convert more solo drivers into eco-friendly transit riders. But instead, RT is banging on pots and pans in an effort to wake current riders to the perils of proposals in the state Legislature to reduce state funding.

Earlier this year, RT started a letter writing campaign in opposition to the governor's proposed cuts. RT held a rally at the Capitol with other agencies interested in transit's availability. And this month, RT is finally trying to scare some response out of riders by announcing that every bus line and even light rail could face cuts in January 2009.

On Monday, July 28, at 6 p.m., RT will hold a public hearing at the Regional Transit auditorium at 1400 29th St. The topic of discussion will be proposed service changes to be implemented in January 2009.

"These changes may include possible reduction, discontinuation or realignment of ... routes on various service days," the July Next Stop News reports. "Due to anticipated State budget cuts, RT is forced to consider these cost-saving measures."

Regional Transit has already had to absorb state cutbacks from the previous year and a decline in the sales tax revenue caused by this year's economic downturn. If the Legislature agrees to the governor's suggested reductions in funding, RT will have no choice but to cut.

"This is your opportunity to provide input before recommendations are adopted by the RT Board of Directors on Monday, August 25, 2008," RT warns.

Anyone who ignores this warning won't have a leg to stand on when they find themselves next year waiting at the stop for a bus that never arrives because it was a victim of the cutbacks.

Subway pole dancing! Light rail next?

The naked guy who hijacked the Las Vegas bus can stay in Vegas, as the saying goes. But now we have Monserrat Morilles, 26, who decided to protest Chile's generally prudish ways by stripping and doing poll dances on Santiago subway trains.



Being a child of the '60s and all, this really does bring back the memories.

"This is just a beginning. We are starting an idea here that will grow and be developed further," she told Reuters as police and subway guards surrounded her.

You can find the complete Reuters story here.

Perhaps she could be invited to America by the people who sponsor the No Pants Metro Ride to add a little purpose to their annual rite.