Leahy's vision was a big topic of conversation for activists and pols alike. Photo: Fred Camino/Flickr

The main reason I attended was to present to the assembled Council members and Metro management a nine point list of items of concern derived from input by several Transit Advocate members. My intent was to use this opportunity to raise key issues of regional concern. The list has now been posted on the SO.CA.TA website.

By far the most interesting agenda item was #2, Metro CEO Art Leahy's remarks which it was promised would include clarification on the "Continuing Role of Sector Governance Councils."

As my previous commentary "Metro in Transition" noted, Leahy is disbanding the sectors in favor of having bus operations managed by function and overseen by Executive Officers who report to the Chief Operations Officer.

Yet Leahy simultaneously has committed to keeping the Sector Governance Councils in place, continuing their role as geographical based oversight of bus service. How this will all work out has been more than a little vague, and many attendees were keenly interested in hearing Leahy provide more details.

In his remarks Leahy noted statistics that bus ridership compared to 20 years ago is down about 35%. And that lines which serve the L.A. central business district carry only 50% of seated capacity for riders with a destination in downtown. Leahy decried these numbers as proof Metro is running excess service and is in need of restructuring how it operates.

But he noted those numbers are somewhat mis-leading as they don't account for the substantial growth of the municipal operators during the period. And also that rail now carries about 25% of Metro's total boardings (300,000 per day) whereas prior to 1990 that number was zero. Leahy noted the Bus Riders Union uses these figures to justify their claims of the need to augment service. But he disagreed with this analysis and felt the decline calls for running service better, not simply flooding the streets with service. Although Leahy did concede for lines that are overcrowded more service may be justified.

Metro is in the midst of recruiting a new Chief Operations Officer, and Leahy stated he has deliberately filled the positions of Executive Directors for Maintenance and Transportation with interim appointments until such time as the COO is in place before permanent hiring occurs. This along with the other structural changes going on at Metro and the budget crisis lends credance to the perception the agency seems unsettled currently. But Leahy noted he is a longtime optimist on Metro's prospects, given its bold plans to expand the rail system and his commitment to work toward improving service quality.

Leahy briefly acknowledged that among those in the audience were City of Torrance Transit Director Kim Turner along with Mike Bohlke (deputy to Metro Board member Pam O'Connor) and Karen Heit (deputy to Metro Board member Diane DuBois). Obviously like me they realized this was an important opportunity to hear Leahy speak at length on cogent issues.

Continuing his remarks, Leahy stated Metro is still working on how it will coordinate with the Sector Councils under the new centralized management structure he is putting in place. Also the new roles of the various incumbent Sector General Managers are being worked on. Dana Coffey of the South Bay is now heading Metro's Labor Relations and Richard Hunt of the San Fernando Valley will assist in fixing the troubled TAP program. Mark Maloney of the Westside/Central and Jack Gabig of the San Gabriel Valley for now stay in place but despite some rumors swirling about their fates Leahy seemed to be hinting he hopes they will stay at Metro in new roles yet to be determined much as Coffey and Hunt are doing.

Leahy concluded his remarks by making sure all the Council members present know his e-mail address and phone number, encouraging them to contact him with any issues they feel are not being addressed. And with that he opened the floor to questions.

Glenn Rosten of the Westside/Central Council asked whether was there a way to guarantee after the Councils engage in the onerous process of overseeing service change proposals with public hearings, etc. that it not end up as a futile exercise with the Board summarily cancelling the plans. This is a sore point with the Councils after this exact scenario happened in mid-2008.

Leahy in response outlined the incremental approach he is taking to edging the Board toward the touchy issue of the looming budget crisis and what should be done to address it. Instead of a head on approach which risks a quick denial, closing options. In other words if you initially mention the possibility of service cuts the impulse on the part of the Board is to say "don't cut any service!" Leahy's approach includes providing the Board with reports on the looming deficit to get them to agree that there is a budget gap and something needs to be done to address it. Simultaneously the level of staffing is being evaluated so employee reductions can be offered as a partial solution. This of course is creating some nervousness among the staff as to whose jobs may be on the chopping block. Leahy has also been meeting with key stakeholders (municipal operators, unions) so they are aware of the situation and implications.

A new survey of Metro users in Leahy's view shows that resistance to fare increases may not be as entrenched some Board members appear to believe. He seems to be ready to make that argument to reluctant Board members.

Wally Schidler of the Gateway Cities Council asked will budgets still be allocated by bus operating division for Councils to monitor. Leahy stated Councils will continue to have a role in monitoring the budget. Schidler also asked what are the prospects of the Sector Councils getting authority to make changes to Tier 1 services without having to seek approval from the Board (they already have this authority for Tiers 2 and 3). While not being explicit I have the impression Leahy didn't see that as happening, at least not for the foreseeable future. Leahy noted the statistic that 20% of buses run hot (ahead of schedule) as an example of the sort of issues he hopes Sectors can help the agency address.

Kymberleigh Richards of the San Fernando Valley Council suggested that the focus of the Councils should be facilitating public input on service change proposals and occasional public workshops to provide a venue for comments on service related issues, complaints/commendations, etc. Leahy assented that this would be a welcome framework for the Councils to aid the agency in exploring options to meet the challenges it faces.

Alex Gonzales of the San Gabriel Valley Council queried would there be possibilities for making funding more equitable. He further asked could the current Formula Allocation Procedure be open to change to have less monies go to the municipal operators and provide more funding for Metro's services. And lastly he raised the possibility that some routes should be looked at for being handed off to the appropriate municipal for operations to help cut costs. Leahy prefaced his response by noting he was being very careful in what he would say on these sensitive topics. He amplified that Metro is party to 5 labor contracts, two of which have provisions that preclude the handing off of service. But he felt he could be open to Metro undertaking reductions in service where perhaps after a year lapsed one of the munis commenced operating service in that corridor.

The two principles that drive service are need and fairness. Leahy noted even in areas where transit demand is minimal the residents still pay taxes and thus have a reasonable expectation of a certain level of service being provided. He also bluntly said he doesn't care whose logo is on the vehicle that provides the service--his focus is on quality and providing value for the tax dollars spent. Drawing on studies done during his tenure as CEO of OCTA, Leahy decried the rail service operating on the coastal route (generally known as the LOSSAN corridor) by Metrolink, Amtrak and the Coaster for lack of coordination, citing the separate ticket windows for Metrolink and Amtrak in Union Station and how despite being a mere 30 feet apart they don't sell each other's tickets or can provide information about the service of the other agency because "we don't operate that". Leahy was especially vocal in noting what in his view was the disgrace that for 15 years Metro had turned a blind eye to the long lines at its Union Station ticket window during the end of the month when people often had to wait upwards of an hour to purchase their pass for next month. "If you suffered through that year after year of course you would hate the agency that put you through that". Leahy added an extra window to reduce the time patrons had to wait to be served, an action he saw as being long overdue.

Ralph Franklin of the South Bay Sector asked some administrative question about how will the Council operate now that the staff overseeing operations are being relocated to Metro's headquarters. Leahy assured Mr. Franklin the intention isn't to have a "fly by night" arrangement for coordinating with the councils but instead have a designated liaison providing a link between the Council and Metro upper management.

Jerard Wright of the Westside/Central Sector zeroed in on issues relating to the implementation of TAP. Leahy acknowledged the depth of problems while seeming reluctant to engage in Metro-bashing. He did admit the lack of a firm plan for TAP coordination with the munis was a great failure of the agency that should be rectified forthwith, along with resolving the fundamental problems with the technology.

Catherine Bator of the Westside/Central Sector asked what would Leahy contemplate doing to solicit more input from non-riders. Leahy indicate this may entail more publicity by the agency to confront the widely held perception of bus riding being unappealing. Continuing, Leahy noted a key issue for him is improving the interface of bus and rail services. He expressed dismay at Little Tokyo Gold Line station making no provision for bus service. And Leahy shared his opinion that interfacing Metro service with future high speed rail is something he considers a Sector Council issue.

A Council member who didn't give her name made a brief statement of her belief that
Metro should explore experimental services, such as Bus Rapid Transit and shuttles.

Don Szerlip and Devon Demming of the South Bay Council in separate comments requested consideration be given to having a public restroom at Artesia Transit Center, given its remote location and the often long waits for connecting buses that occur there. Leahy noted current policy discourages such facilities as they are "difficult to maintain" but he promised to investigate the situation and get back to the the Council on any viable options to address it.

Wally Schidler of the Gateway Cities Council stressed the need for connectivity between Metro and the munis and went so far as to propose the need for a single regional fare.

One last nugget of news Leahy shared with us is Metro currently is in talks with the Dodgers and AQMD exploring options for the resumption of shuttle service linking Union Station and Dodger Stadium.

Next Interim Chief Operating Officer Lonnie Mitchell came forward to make a brief presentation. He noted he had so far met with four of the five Council chairs and is seeking ways to improve the process by which the Councils oversee service as an outcome of management reorganization.

Conan Cheung, Metro's Deputy Executive Officer for Operations Service Planning and Development, next came forward to discuss the status of the Blue Ribbon panel the Metro Board approved the formation of last October. This group of stakeholders and transit professionals is tasked to formulate a vision that encompasses an integrated system, doing more with less and allocating resources better. The 1st meeting was held February 2nd and reached these initial conclusions:

*rail is the backbone
*bus provides linkages, last mile connectivity
*system easy to use is the goal
*clean/safe/on-time
*address perceptions of transit

Meetings are being held the 1st Tuesday of each month with an aim to have implementation of the service concepts that it produces occur later this year.

The last speaker was Lynda Bybee, Deputy Executive Officer - Regional Communications Programs. She promised some of the ideas mentioned in the meeting would be infused into the agendas of future Council meetings. Also that specific Metro staff are being tasked to act as Council liaisons on an interim basis until the new structure for interfacing is put in place.

If nothing else the Meet & Confer made it abundantly clear Art Leahy is putting his stamp on Metro and that confronting some of its longtime bugaboos are among the things he intends to tackle. It should make for an interesting process to keep tabs on.

This weekend the Times profiled one of Los Angeles' many bus riders, focusing on a young woman who chooses the bus over the car to commute from the Westside to Beverly Hills.  The rider, Jacquelyn Carr, authors her own blog about her riding experiences at Snob on a Bus, and both the blog and the Times article tell a charming story of a woman who first takes the bus because she feels she has to and ends up integrating herself into the culture on the Westside part of the Metro 720.

While the Times piece is hardly groundbreaking stuff for someone that reads transit blogs or rides the bus; it is great to see Los Angeles' paper of record delve in to transportation culture beyond the culture of the car.  As someone who has been critical of much of the Times' coverage in recent months, especially Ari Bloomekatz who wrote this piece, it's great to read a piece that reads as though it were part of SF Streetsblog's "Muni Rider Profile," or a Fred Camino piece at The Source than a Times story.

Consider these couple of paragraphs, that describe riding the bus as a fun place to be:

They agreed to leave for home at 1:30 a.m. Carr had never taken the bus that late and was not sure what to expect. Stumbling but rushing, the group got to the bus stop just before the coach pulled away.

They piled into the front seats and started talking with the driver. Before long, the bus was echoing with alcohol-fueled hoots and laughter. The driver seemed to take great pleasure in playfully needling the group, at one point calling them "idiots" for being so boisterous. The group called her Patty, even though Carr can't remember whether that was her real name.

The group told "Patty" she deserved an award for best late-night bus driver. And the ride home ended up being the most memorable part of the evening.

By now you may have already read about the Bus Bench's effort to write a review of every transit stop in Los Angeles.  In addition to coverage at The Bus Bench, which has been publishing for four years, it has also earned praise from LA Loyalist, Curbed and The Source. 

But if not, here's the scoop.  Bus Bench publisher, and regular Streetsblog commenter and sometimes contributor, Browne Molyneux decided she would use google maps to review every transit stop in Los Angeles to review whether or not the stop is safe, clean, whether it has a bench or shelter, whether it's located near things worth walking to, and even if it's a good place to watch the sun set.  After taking on this herculean task for awhile, she opened the project up for anyone to write a review.

Curbed estimates that there are over 17,000 transit stops in L.A. County, so we're talking about a long haul to analyze all of them.  In fact, if the map adds 10 reviews a day it would be almost five years before the entire county received a review.

Not that we shouldn't try.  Thus far, most of the reviews are in the Downtown and branching out to the areas adjacent to it.  Because I wanted to play along before I wrote a review, I emailed Molyneux at browne@shametrainla.com  and within minutes I was ready to go.  Before I started writing, I checked out who my other contributors were.  There were some familiar names: Damien G, DGabbard, Spokker and Ramon Martinez.

Now here's the sad reality.  After a series of mishaps with late buses; I opted out of the bus system.  It might take me a couple of minutes more, on average, to bike Downtown from my current dwelling; but at least it was a predictable trip.  That being said, there are a handful of bus stops that I'm familiar enough with to write a review.  Thus, I took the time to write a review for the Metro and DASH stop at Beverly and Garland.  Normally, I would say, "to read the review, click on after the jump."  But this time, why not head over to the Bus Bench's transit stop map instead.

So here's the deal, when I looked at this week's agenda, I noticed it was somewhat lacking in high profile decisions compared to some of the others.  Sure, there was Ridley-Thomas' motion to audit Metro's legal division, a plan to delay implementation of HOT Lanes, and the official addition of an underground option to the environmental reviews of the Downtown Connector; but The Source and other news outlets more than delivered the news.  So, I decided to take a month off from doing the full Metro Board analysis to see what the reaction would be.

Here's my question to you: Did you miss my coverage?  Next month, do you want me to go back to writing a preview earlier in the week and a full recap afterward?  Did you miss my sarcastic coverage of all the contradictory things Metro Board members say?  Or would you rather me spend my time on other articles and just covering the major news out of Metro?  Were the other stories I wrote on Tuesday and Thursday better than my usual Metro Board coverage?

Let me know in the comments section.  Remember, I'm not talking about possible not covering Metro and its Board Meetings, just focusing on the news stories from the meetings only.  And if you tell me you want the "old" Board coverage back, well, that's what we'll do.

Three years ago, in a heated and contested fare increase public hearing, an MTA board majority voted for a fare increase proposal in an attempt to pass a two-phased fare hike plan, all the while over 1,500 bus riders and supporters and a strong MTA minority Board bloc led by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa expressed their opposition and were one vote shy of defeating the fare increase proposal. But the last two years have created different financial realities for many on the streets and the MTA has been no exception, but in contrast to struggling working class families impacted by government service cuts, layoffs, and foreclosures; since 2007 MTA has secured a third transit sales tax and federal stimulus funding and while impacted by state transportation cuts, their budget has grown substantially.

To give you an anecdotal idea of how long ago May of 2007 is; at that time I was still sitting at a desk in New York City wondering how Hillary Clinton was going to beat Rudy Giuliani to become President. Streetsblog Los Angeles was still ten months from being launched.

So what does the BRU want? Basically, they want a chance to make their case against a fare hike through the public process, believing they can either get some more funds from Measure R for transit operations or at least put more political heat on those backing the hikes. Just like any other hearing process, they want sixty days notice of a public hearing to be held in a room larger than the Metro Board room. In 2007, so many people showed up to protest the increases at Metro HQ, that many were left without an ability to provide comment.

Which is not to say that the concept of increasing fares does not have supporters. Recently, the Times editorialized in favor of fare increases for Metro to help stabilize the "fare box recovery ratio," or in plain English to have riders support a higher percentage of the agencies operating costs. The recovery ratio for Metro is less than thirty percent, which doesn't compare favorably to agencies for other major cities. For example, BART up in the Bay Area has a recovery ratio of over fifty percent. While most speakers spoke against hikes at the May 2007 hearing, there were notable exceptions including the Transit Coalition's Bart Reed, members of So.CA.TA., and even Damien Goodmon.

In addition to the hikes, the Bus Riders are also worried about planned cuts to bus service that will be coming later this year.

MTA's staff is also pushing for additional draconian measures by advocating for the MTA board to cut 145,000 of bus services for next years budget. If these cuts are implemented MTA would have cut close to 500,000 hours of bus service expansion won under the civil rights Consent Decree (representing over half of the court order remedies won under the decree).

The BRU's full press release, which includes a chart showing what fares will be raised and by how much without action, can be found after the jump.

Bus Riders Union Urges MTA Board To Open

A Public Hearing Process for Looming 2010 Proposed Fare Increase

Fare Hike Proposal Violates the Civil, Economic, and Environmental Rights of Bus Riders

Los Angeles, February 24, 2009 - The Bus Riders Union will hold a press conference urging MTA Chair Ara Najarian, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, LADOT General Manager Rita Robinson and LA City Councilmember Jose Huizar to reject any proposal to close MTA's self-imposed "operations deficit" by imposing fare increases or bus service cuts and to create a public hearing process. In the last two years, people have lost their jobs, homes, access to countless social services and the city of Los Angeles city has the highest unemployment rate in decades with no concrete economic recovery or stimulus in sight. The Bus Riders Union believes any proposal to cut service and raise fares on low-income working class riders of color during these tough economic times is an affront and a violation of civil and human rights of half a million Latino, Black and Asian bus riders, who make over 90% of MTA bus ridership.

MTA's 2010 Fare Increase Proposal

Current 7/1/10

Cash	$1.25	$1.50	20% increase
Token	$1.25	$1.50	20% increase
Owl service	$1.25	$1.50	20% increase
Day pass	$5.00	$6.00	20% increase
Weekly	$17.00	$20.00	18% increase
Monthly	$62.00	$75.00	21% increase
EZ Pass	$70.00	$84.00	20% increase

Fare Increase and Bus Service Cuts: Double trouble for civil rights and mobility - MTA officials themselves have acknowledged that fare increases reduce ridership. In 2004, ridership decreased by 5% within a year and riderhsip has decreased 8% in the last year. MTA's staff is also pushing for additional draconian measures by advocating for the MTA board to cut 145,000 of bus services for next years budget. If these cuts are implemented MTA would have cut close to 500,000 hours of bus service expansion won under the civil rights Consent Decree (representing over half of the court order remedies won under the decree).

MTA staff is attempting to circumvent the publics right to a fare increase hearing

MTA staff is raising the specter of fare increase and service cuts for July 2010. MTA staff has been operating under the assumption that fare increases are a given and are moving to implement the second phase of the fare increase motion adopted in May, 2007 and will circumvent the right of the public to shape, debate and hopefully defeat a fare increase proposal. We urge the MTA Board of Directors to protect the rights of bus riders and the public to have a pubic hearing on any proposed fare hikes and service cuts. We ask for the following: a.) MTA should at minimum give a 60-day notice of a proposed fare increase vote, b.) Hold a public hearing on a weekend to allow full public participation, c.) Hold the public hearing in a larger space like the LA County Board of Supervisors boardroom d.) Hold a public hearing that requires the attendance of the full MTA Board and a formal vote.

MTA's deficit is a construction deficit, not a bus operation deficit…Transit Racism Wants to Roll Over Civil Rights

The MTA's annual budget has grown about $1 billion since the fare increases were approved in 2007. MTA's "deficit" is a self-imposed one; MTA's aggressive plans to expand rail projects come with large construction price tags and virtually no operation funding to run these projects. MTA's upcoming budget has the new burden to operate the Eastside Gold Line and impending operation of the Expo I Light Rail. The real solution to the "deficit" crisis will require the MTA to slow down and evaluate its aggressive and unsustainable rail and highway spending outlined in Measure R and the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan and instead aggressively lobby the State and Congress to get more operations funds. Raising fares and cutting service is not the solution to LA's "deficit" it will only exacerbate the situation and "drive" people off mass transit.

Three years ago, in a heated and contested fare increase public hearing, an MTA board majority voted for a fare increase proposal in an attempt to pass a two-phased fare hike plan, all the while over 1,500 bus riders and supporters and a strong MTA minority Board bloc led by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa expressed their opposition and were one vote shy of defeating the fare increase proposal. But the last two years have created different financial realities for many on the streets and the MTA has been no exception, but in contrast to struggling working class families impacted by government service cuts, layoffs, and foreclosures; since 2007 MTA has secured a third transit sales tax and federal stimulus funding and while impacted by state transportation cuts, their budget has grown substantially.

Hard Times Require Real Leadership: We urge MTA Board of Directors to Reject MTA Staff's Circumvention of a Public Process and Support the Civil Rights and Environmental Rights of Bus Riders of Color by Rejecting Any Fare Increase and Service Cuts Proposal.

In May 2007, after an aggressive political campaign by the BRU to pressure Mayor Villaraigosa, he took a stand against a draconian set of fare increases. This year, we call on Mayor Villaraigosa and the newest members of the Board Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, General Manager Rita Robinson and Councilmember Jose Huizar reject any proposal to close the deficit that includes fare increases and service cuts and to protect the civil, economic and environmental rights of ½ million Black, Latino, Asian and white working class bus riders, who cannot afford to pay a penny more.

It was billed as a day to discuss the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Trust Fund, it turned in to a stirring defense of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and ended with a commitment from a United States Senator to do all she could to help turn Los Angeles into a transit town within the next ten years.

Following this morning's press conference by local transportation reformers, labor leaders and environmental advocates; Senator Barbara Boxer, the Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, and USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood held their own press conference.  Flanked by metro mechanics and Board Members at the downtown bus refurbishment center.  While the advocates were focused on the future, Boxer and LaHood spent much of their time talking about the past, most notably the year-old Stimulus legislation, recent High Speed Rail grants received by California, and this week's TIGER Grants.

"Stimulus funds are hard at work everywhere you look, from the 405 and on L.A.'s light rail system!"  LaHood exclaimed.  The Gold Line Eastside Extension received nearly $67 million in Stimulus funds, while the massive widening of the I-405, the largest highway project funded by Stimulus dollars, received just under $190 million.

LaHood also seemed particularly pleased about the TIGER Grants, pointing out how well Boxer had lobbied on the state's behalf.  He returned to this theme repeatedly, which drew a tepid response from his audiences in the town hall and the press conference, probably because Los Angeles County hadn't received any TIGER funding.

However, most of the news was made not at the press conference, but back at Metro headquarters for the Town Hall meeting.  Boxer outlined a timeline for the reathorization of the Federal Transportation Trust Fund and vowed to do all she could to accelerate transit projects in L.A. County to, in the words of Mayor Villaraigosa, "vindicate the will of the people."

"I hear you. I get it. I'm all over it."  With those ten words U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer embraced local efforts to complete all Measure R transit projects within the next ten years and turned Denny Zane and the Move L.A. Coalition into the most influential transit group in Southern California.  Zane was the central figure in creating the "30 in 10" plan and promoting it, most recently at a press event this morning.  Boxer noted that there are some laws already on the books that could help move projects faster than Measure R's current thirty year timetable, and that if other laws need to be changed, she would do all she could to help make those changes.

As for reauthorization, Boxer signaled her intent to pass her MAP 21 legislation, which would replace SAFETEA-LU, by the end of the year.  However, Boxer had no answers to questions about funding the new transportation trust fund, nor would she commit to any funding formula such as a guaranteed set-aside for transit.  She also avoided discussing the legislation being offered by the House Transportation Committee Chair, Minnesota Democrat James Oberstar; suggesting that a bicameral plan to support reauthorization hasn't been created yet.

She did, however, push the audience to call Congress, especially Republicans, to support the "Jobs Bill" that will be voted on this Monday.  Part of the legislation would extend funding of the current transportation trust fund until December 31, under the current funding scheme.

LaHood also signaled support for "30 in 10" in the afternoon, so he must have had a major change of heart from the morning.  At the morning press conference, he brushed off a question by The Source's Steve Hymon on future federal spending on the Subway to the Sea and Downtown Connector with a terse, "I'm not going to evaluate projects in front of you."  In the afternoon, he was saying that after speaking with Villaraigosa he would do what he could to help the city reach its transit dreams.  "We'll work to leverage the Measure R funds."

In addition to the three major topics, there were three other interesting asides during the question and answer portion of the discussion.  The first was a terse exchange between Senator Boxer and Keith Millhouse, the Chair of the Metrolink Board of Directors.  Referencing the $50 million the federal government allocated for safety systems known as positive train control systems following the September 2008 Chatsworth Crash, Millhouse tried to put the two on the spot to guarantee Metrolink the rest of the funding.

Boxer roared back that while the federal government is working to make certain that funding for every rail system to have positive train control systems will be in place; it's up to Metrolink to do everything it can to keep their trains safe in the short term.  The two continued a back and forth over whether Metrolink should have two engineers at the front of each train as well as a camera.  Millhouse wouldn't commit to that, while Boxer wouldn't commit to a timeline to get Metrolink its PTS funding.

The next audience member to speak was Paul Dyson, the president of the Rail Passengers Association of California and Nevada.  Dyson took up for Millhouse, claiming there were many examples of crashes being caused by a pair of engineers distracting each other.  Boxer asked Dyson to send along those instances, but seemed doubtful they existed.

Having riled Boxer, Dyson turned to LaHood and questioned the $2.25 billion High Speed Rail Grant given to California.  Dyson pointed to the huge cost of the project to connect Anaheim to the Bay Area, nearly $40 billion and commented that the grant was too small to be useful in construction and to high to not be wasted by bureaucrats.   For the second time that day, LaHood lost his cool and fired back:

This is the first time I’ve ever heard someone say they didn’t want $2.25 billion after working on high-speed rail for 10 years...Your argument is ridiculous. The reason that we gave that money to California is because you’ve done a good job. If you think it’s being mismanaged, come forward and tell us about it. We don’t find that to be the case.

This is a somewhat amazing claim, as there has been plenty of criticism of the High Speed Rail Authority in California covered in such small local papers as the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times.  While LaHood dismissed  Dyson with a joke about sending those complaints along with his proof that engineers can distract each other along to Boxer; he managed to get a laugh and show a disconnect with the local debate all at the same time.

Last, the Senator had a strong message of support for transit advocates on operations.  Responding to a question from Esperanza Martinez of the Bus Riders Union; Boxer pointed out that it doesn't make a lot of sense to build a world class transit system if you can't afford to operate it.  Earlier, LaHood had pointed out that both the administration and Boxer had supported legislation that would make it easier for transit agencies to spend federal dollars on operations.

For more on today's events, The Source has two stories on today's events.  One on LaHood and Boxer's press conference and one on the invitation-only Town Hall meeting.

For months, Metro has been upgrading their online presence.  Between The Source, a twitter feed for service interruptions, and a Facebook page; you would think they hired a tech-savvy college student to upgrade their web presence.  Today, they belatedly launched the Beta version of their new website. Metro has high hopes that the new website is going to make project information and other information important to their riders and stakeholders more visible and easier to find.

My first impression is that the website upgrade is a good one.  By using tabs at the top of the page for the four different issues people would care about, "Getting Around," "News & Media," "Projects & Programs," and "About Us."  Putting your cursor over a tab leads you to a long list of links.  Thus far, I haven't found a dead link or other issue that would make you think they rolled the new site out too soon.  What do you think of the new site?  Leave your comments below, I know Metro is reading.

Boxer and LaHood get on the same page. Photo: Associated Press

If this sounds familiar, it's because Boxer held a similar forum downtown back in September of 2008 where various officials from around Los Angeles, ranging from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and then-Metro CEO Roger Snoble testified about their priorities in a federal transportation funding and policy bill.  The basics of the hours and hours of testimony can be described in two terms: "new starts" and "ports."  There was no mention of words such as "bicycle," "pedestrian," or even "Smart Growth."

The key to whether this "Town Hall Forum" is a chance to have a discussion of what various transportation stakeholders need and desire in a transportation re-authorization bill will be up to Boxer, LaHood and Leahy.  Last time non-VIP's had to wait through hours of presentations by elected officials and bureaucrats before any advocates or other people that don't collect a government pay check.  If this is really a Town Hall hearing, then hopefully all of the stake holders, including commuters that don't have a paid driver get to speak.

The Southern California Transit Advocate's Dana Gabbard agrees,

I'm glad to see Senator Barbara Boxer and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have announced they are reaching out to stakeholders seeking input on the currently stalled federal transportation funding reauthorization bill. Which is all well and good IF the attendees reflect a wide range of stakeholders, not just usual suspects. Heretofore our region hasn't always done as well as it should in that regard. If a more diverse group of people see the process as being connected to their needs and concerns, maybe the chances would improve of some progress occuring in passage of the bill sooner rather than later. At least the preliminary agenda includes some good concepts for discussion, including livability and safety.

I guess we'll have to wait and see for another nine days.  Rest assured, this website will "go dark" next Friday, but we'll be live tweeting from Metro's Board Room.

I'm sure bus operations will come up...Photo: SoCalMetro/Flickr

As I noted in my previous commentary "Metro In Transition", while the Sectors are being disbanded the Governance Councils continue in their role of providing oversight of Metro bus operations.

In the past the Councils had an annual joint meeting where they had an opportunity to have a dialogue with agency management. Art Leahy when attending the 2009 meeting last Oct. for the first time in his role as Metro CEO announced he would like to hold the meetings more quarterly to allow more frequent consultation on regional issues that cross sector boundaries.

On Tuesday Feb. 16th at 3 p.m. the first quarterly Sector Governance Council Meet and Confer will be held in the Metro Board Room, on the 3rd floor of the headquarters building adjacent to the Gateway Transit Plaza just east of Union Station.

The meeting will include an opportunity to present public comment. This is a chance in one setting to address Metro management/operations staff and Sector Governance Council members regarding any bus service issues you may feel worthy of airing. I'll be attending and besides making a few comments will be interested to hear any other public comments and also what the Governance Council members have to say and what kind of presentations Metro staff make. Hopefully it will be somewhat educational.

Earlier this week, Streetsblog Capitol Hill's Elana Schor wrote about the transit agencies across the country that received federal "New Starts" funding.  As is common knowledge now, Los Angeles was shut out, receiving $0 in federal funds in this round of funding from the federal government for the two projects for which they applied, the Regional Connector and the Subway to the Sea.  Yesterday at The Source, Steve Hymon explained why Los Angeles was shut out, but also made the case that the most populous county in the country deserves a share of federal dollars.

The reason: the projects haven’t yet been designated as official New Starts projects, although FTA officials are working with Metro on the complex application process.

As a result, the FY 2011 budget has no New Starts money for Los Angeles County, the most heavily populated county in the United States, with 9.86 million people...

...The county did receive its last installment of nearly $500 million in New Starts money last year to help pay for the Eastside Gold Line, which opened in November. In fairness to the feds, it can also be argued that Metro may have received subway and connector funds this year if the planning process for both had started earlier than 2007 and the projects were farther along.

Both advocates for the Gold Line Foothill Extension and opponents of the Expo Line have argued that Metro should apply for "New Starts" money for these projects as well.  Adding more projects to the list of projects Metro submits does increase the chance that Metro will bring home more of that federal bacon; but it also decreases the chance that those projects favored by the Board are the ones that are partially funded.

Regardless of where "the blame" should go for "the most heavily populated county in the United States" getting shut out of this popular transit funding program, let's encourage both Metro and the Federal Government to make certain this doesn't happen again next year.

Later this morning, the Metro Board of Directors will meet for the first time in the 2010 calendar year, and is faced with its biggest challenge since the passage of Measure R...a quarter of a billion operating deficit.  While some issues on the undercard are interesting, such as the Board finally moving to find a contractor to construct rail cars ten months after their quixotic quest to hand the contract to AnsaldoBreda kicked off; the largest issues is going to be what to do about the budget.  After years of shifting budgets and tapping contingency funds, Metro has to make some hard choices to make.

You can read the full Metro agenda here, and Streetsblog will provide more coverage of the meeting either later this afternoon or tomorrow, but in the meantime; the agenda spells out the economic assumptions that the Metro staff and Board are facing as they prepare the FY 2011 budget that begins on July 1, 2010.  This time, I won't be live tweeting, but you can always follow the action as it happens at The Source, or the Gold Line Foothill Extension's twitter feed.

In today's Los Angeles Times, the local paper of record follows up on this weekend's look at Metro's operational funding crisis with an editorial urging the Metro Board to increase fares to help close the agency's roughly quarter of a billion annual deficit for 2011.

To be fair, the editorial strikes a lot of the right notes.  It does talk about the Metro's relatively low farebox recovery ration, the major problems with the state's yearly grab of operating funds, and the pain felt by all Angelenos if transit riders feel forced into their cars for their commutes or other trips currently made by transit.  But, the only solution offered for fixing the $250 billion deficit is fare increases.  From the editorial:

In most big U.S. cities, it costs at least $2 to ride the bus, and big-city transit agencies typically make enough from fares to cover about 40% of their operating expenses. In L.A. a one-way ride costs $1.25, and fares cover only about 26% of the MTA's expenses. The fare will jump to $1.50 in July, but that still won't be enough to make up for the budget shortfall. One solution would be to impose an annual schedule of hikes to put fares in line with other cities and allow them to keep up with inflation. Ridership would probably fall in the short term, but such fare-based plunges seldom last long; moreover, L.A. bus and rail riders are going to have to pay their fair share of the costs if they want to avoid deep cuts in service.

But, the editorial also misses on a lot of points.  First, it doesn't mention the riders for whom a fare increase won't mean going back to their car, but will mean less food on the table or more debt.  As is often pointed out in the Streetsblog comments section, Los Angeles has a sizeable population that is transit dependent, and they shouldn't be excluded from the discussion when the impacts of fare increases are discussed.

Second, the only politician mentioned by name is Antonio Villaraigosa.  The Mayor takes a shot for putting his capital behind the Subway to the Sea but not fixing Metro's operating funding issues.  This seems an odd target, because over sixty percent of Metro's deficit is caused by the state's transit raids, ruled illegal by the State Supreme Court, that there is a push to continue this year.  The Mayor may have a lot of pull, but the name of the person who could do the most to fix Metro's problem is another Angeleno.  Unfortunately, this one commutes by jet to Sacramento, so he doesn't have to worry about the trains running on time.

Pamela Moye rides the 28-19th Avenue in San Francisco. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Riding the 28-19th Avenue northbound towards the Richmond on a recent weekday afternoon, Pamela Moye has almost nothing but good things to say about Muni.

Aside from the occasional long wait for an M-Ocean View train, Moye, a schoolteacher, said her experience with Muni has been overwhelmingly positive.

"I love public transportation in San Francisco," said Moye. "It's super easy."

What accounts for Moye's sunny appraisal of Muni, a system that's subject to near-universal griping among San Franciscans? Moye, it turns out, benefits from the perspective of being a former San Francisco resident who now lives in Los Angeles, car-free.

"People think I'm crazy for riding the bus in LA," she said. Though she doesn't agree with that assessment, Moye said she knows far fewer people who ride transit in her new home than in San Francisco.

Moye left San Francisco in 2002 to pursue a teaching job after attending San Francisco State. She was back in town on the day we spoke to complete work on her degree seven years later, and was happy to reminisce about her days living on 5th Avenue and Geary.

"Living in San Francisco turned me into a non-car owner," she said. The cost and hassle of parking, insurance, and gas pushed her towards giving up her vehicle, and she hasn't looked back.

After growing up in Idaho, she found the bus her key to exploring San Francisco. "Riding the bus is a great way to learn a city," said Moye. When she arrived here, she said, if she had a free afternoon, "I would just get on a bus and ride."

Now, when friends and family ask for suggestions on what to do during visits to San Francisco, Moye tells them to take the 38-Geary from one end of the line to the other, from ocean to bay, one of the best ways to see a broad cross-section of the city. (Jane Jacobs wrote about taking a similar approach to learning New York City when she first arrived, randomly choosing subway lines to ride to new neighborhoods every week.)

Moye has continued this practice in Los Angeles, a city (and region) famed for its dependence on the automobile, though it has increasingly focused on expanding transit service.

Los Angeles' bus system seems to produce more unusual tales in general, according to Moye. Citing her favorite strange story, Moye said she "noticed two homeless women chatting away, and I thought, 'it's great that they've befriended each other.'"

"Then one of them moved away when a seat opened up, and I realized they were actually both talking to themselves."

Of course, "strange is relative," said Moye.

LA's network of rapid buses and light rail lines has served her fairly well, she said, but she still misses San Francisco, where the main drawback was the cost of living. And while she's now a dedicated car-free Angeleno, traveling by bicycle in LA is still too intimidating. "San Francisco seems safer for bicycling. It's just not really enjoyable in LA."

As she heads towards her final destination near Clement Street, it's tempting to hear her praise for Muni as the nostalgia of someone seeing through rose-colored glasses. Still, it's good to be reminded that this city can reshape how people think about transportation in a way that lasts long after they leave its dense, 47-square miles.

Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times took a look at the coming budget crisis at Metro.  The article just scratches the surface of the issue, correctly noting that there are a lot of reasons for the quarter of a billion dollar operating deficit including the state's budget grabs, lower than projected sales tax revenue and an 8% decline in ridership from Metro's record setting year in 2008.

However, while the article is very clear that over $150 million of the $250 million deficit comes from the state's grab of a fund dedicated to transit operations, it doesn't name names for who it to blame for that raid.  The word "Schwarzenegger" doesn't appear.  And, to be fair, while Los Angeles County is home to the last two Assembly Speakers, the current Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, and Chair of a Transportation sub-committee that deals with funding issues; none of these leaders are mentioned or quoted.  Assembly Members Fabian Nunez, Karen Bass, Mike Eng, and Michale Feuer, take a bow.

As has been noted several times, one of the reasons the debate on the Governor's current transit raid is receiving such a frosty reception compared to previous years is because the press is covering the impact transit cuts state wide are having on riders, especially those that are transit-dependent.  The next step is for the press to start naming names, so that you don't have to read transportation blogs to be able to pin the blame on the Donkeys and the Governor.

I was somewhat heartened last week when coverage of the massive I-405 Sepulveda Pass Widening Project actually mentioned the amazing amount of highway vehicle congestion that will be created by the project over its estimated three year construction phase.  However, I waited to write about the press coverage because I was hopeful that some writer would actually make the connection that the this project could actually create more congestion over the course of the construction than will be "relieved"before induced demand helps fill those new travel lanes back up.  Unfortunately, there is no such luck.  The news coverage ranges from, "traffic is going to be awful but at least everything is going to be so much better when it's done" to "traffic is going to be worse than they're saying because the government is always wrong about these sort of thing."  Unfortunately, nobody is taking on the government's claim that the project is going to permanently reduce congestion in the corridor.

Let's start with NBC 4.  In a January 11 story entitled "Reconfiguring the 405: Short Term Pain, Long Term Gain," NBC uncritically repeats the claims of Caltrans and Metro in an article about local closures resulting from the project.  If you believe the poll on the side of the article, which is about as unscientific a poll as you can find, it appears that the project doesn't have near the local support that Metro and Caltrans seem to think.  In the meantime, all we get from NBC is a promise of Long Term Gain, and a sentence from unnamed officials that the project is totally worth it.

In the Times, Ari Bloomekatz spends a lot of time talking to former Caltrans District 7 Director, and current Metro highway program director and dutifully passes along Failing's claims about the awesomeness of the project without criticism.  Actually, I take that back.  Bloomekatz does take a second to complain that the project is for carpools only and thus doesn't help eighty-five percent of commuters.  I used to complain about terms such as Road Sage and Bottleneck Blog to describe Steve Hymon's columns, but the car-centric transportation coverage from the Times these days more than earns those titles for their transportation beat.

One writer I can't take issue with as far as not just repeating statements from public officials is the outgoing transportation writer of the Daily News, Sue Doyle.  Doyle talked to a series of business owners along Sepulveda who are terrified of the three years of traffic that will clog the street in front of their business and a handful of "transportation experts."  None of the experts mentioned induced demand, and they uncritically passed along Caltrans and Metro's statistics, but hey.  At least Doyle took the time to ask someone else.  Sue, if you're reading this, you will be missed.

At news blog LA Observed, editor Kevin Roderick does take the time to note that the three year timetable is a best-case-scenario to finish the project.  Given that it's already behind schedule because of the rain we've seen recently, it's a little hard to believe that it's going to stay on schedule.  Roderick doesn't mention the obvious awesomeness of the project, must be why he's writing a blog, but he earns points for not uncritically passing off government spin.

Given the rapid evolution of media over the last several years, it's unlikely that I'll still be writing Los Angeles Streetsblog when the project is completed and the congestion has returned to "pre-2010" levels, but I promise you this.  When that day does happen, I'll come back and we can measure what took longer.  The construction of the new travel lanes and other capacity enhancements or the time it took for that expansion to become filled up.

Expect to see some hard hats along the Expo Line as other transit projects move through the study phase.  Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

While our headlines and calendar sections are full of news and meetings about transit cuts happening all over the map of L.A. County, thanks to the passage of Measure R, there's also going to be a lot of meetings about expansion. While I'm not saying that advocates shouldn't fight to protect their favorite bus lines, be they Metro, DASH, or Big Blue Bus, sometimes it's nice to remember that things aren't all bad.

Of course, while finalizing studies are nice, the highlight of the year will most likely be the opening of Phase I of the Expo Line sometime this summer, or perhaps this fall if we follow the Gold Line's Eastside Extension's schedule.  Of course, its not just the opening that people are looking forward to, but the Expo Line Safety Ride sponsored by Streetsblog in a similar manner to what we did with the Eastside Extension.  It could be worth it just to see if I can get Damien Goodmon to join us on a bicycle.

As for Phase II, certification of the Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected this winter, and construction could begin as early as this summer.  Of course, the FEIR includes provisions about a bike path, so don't think you're getting the year off cycling advocates.

In South L.A., we can expect a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Crenshaw Line, but of course there's some controversy. Once Metro chose rail over Bus Rapid Transit for the corridor, only part of the controversy was solved. Some local activists are pushing for more stops and track to run below grade than is currently called for in the plans, but Supervisor/Metro Board Member Mark Ridley-Thomas has insured that the costs and advantages of "at grade" versus "below grade" are studied in the environmental documents.

On the Eastside, planning to extend the Gold Line Eastside Extension farther east will begin their environmental reviews. Expect the ridership numbers of the current extension to be bandied about as advocates for the second extension battle a preception that ridership estimates don't justify the costs.

Advocates and opponents for the Westside Extension and Regional Connector will get updates on the projects in the Spring. One of the big questions that remains for the Connector is whether or not the new "Little Tokyo Friendly" alignment is selected or if the strong community opposition to the project continues.  Rumor is that the finalized studies might have to wait until 2011, due in part to the Metro Board's inability to pass the 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan until the 2010 fiscal year. However, with some luck both projects could finish their environmental review this year.

April could also see the release of draft documents for the Wilshire Bus Rapid Transit studies. Because the project is somewhat smaller than the rail projects, the studies could actually be completed this summer. Just because visitors from other towns already love Metro's Rapid Buses along the corridor doesn't mean they couldn't use an upgrade. And remember, cyclists, those bus only lanes are "bike ok."

While it may seem like Metro is waiting to pounce with a full docket of meetings in April and October, they are expecting to get working on the Draft Environmental Documents for the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor sometime earlier this Spring.

As for the controversial Gold Line Foothill Extension, one consultant for the project joked to me that "they are selling shovels at OSH" to get the project underway. While I of course encourage you to stay tuned to Streetsblog for updates on all of these projects, I can't compete with I Will Ride on coverage of the Foothill Extension.

Needless to say, April will be transit meeting hell, or heaven depending your point of view, with a likely to repeat in October.

Ridership on L.A.'s heavy rail system grew by nearly 6 percent during the first three-quarters of 2009. (Photo: LA2Day)

But amid the bleak data from cities such as Cleveland, where rail ridership fell by more than 14 percent during the first nine months of 2009, and Miami, where the funding-starved Tri-Rail system saw more than 10 percent fewer riders during that period, the APTA report found some transit success stories.

Los Angeles' Metro subway, one section of which topped 2020 ridership projections in its first year of operation, saw ridership grow by nearly 6 percent during the first nine months of 2009.

Baltimore's light rail grew by an even greater margin, according to APTA, with unlinked passenger trips topping 6.7 million during the first three-quarters of last year. That represents a 13.9 percent increase over the same period in 2008, when riders took an estimated 5.9 million unlinked trips.

The SEPTA light rail system in the Philadelphia area also climbed higher in APTA's report, tallying more than 21.2 million unlinked trips during the first three-quarters of 2009 after marking 18 million during the same period in 2008 -- an increase of 17.5 percent.

Among commuter rail networks, New Mexico's much-anticipated Rail Runner extension from Albuquerque to Santa Fe helped ridership more than double during the first nine months of 2009, and Boston's system reported a ridership increase of more than 2.3 percent compared with the same period in 2008.

Veteran riders and advocates know that twice a year Metro's bus operators bid for driving slots based on seniority per the collective bargaining agreement between the agency and the United Transportation Union, which represents the bus and rail operators. This means you may see new faces behind the wheel on the routes you regularly ride.

During the change-over, Metro also makes adjustments to service.

In addition to these small shake-ups, we will see two new services begin: the weekday peak hour route 902 linking the Van Nuys corridor and North Hollywood Red Line station and the Silver Line operating along the Harbor and El Monte busways through downtown L.A..

I have some concerns about the new services and their advisability, and plan to keep an eye on how they do. Service shakeup and watching how they work out...just another part of the fun world of transit advocacy.

Earlier today the Metro Board of Directors unanimously approved the light rail alternative for the Crenshaw Corridor and agreed to study making the light rail run underground for a dozen blocks between 48th and 59th street over the plans of the Metro staff. According to a press release, "The light rail alternative will be 8.5 miles in length from the Metro Green Line Aviation Station to the Expo Line, now under construction, at Crenshaw and Exposition boulevards, with a travel time estimated at 20 minutes. There will be seven new stations plus an option for one more. The final Environment Impact Study/Environment Impact Report could be ready by the end of 2010, with the line scheduled to open in 2018."

The vote today followed a mobilization of the community activists for the light rail option, as opposed to the BRT option, since alternatives for the line were first being discussed. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas has been actively pushing for the light rail option since his election last year and today's vote can only be construed as a victory for his efforts. However, just because the underground alignment is being studied doesn't mean that it will be in the final design, but it would head off another prolonged battle between Metro and the South L.A. Community over a light rail line.

The Crenshaw Corridor Light Rail line wasn't the only rail line to move forward. The Board also voted to move forward with an extension of Metro Green Line rail service to the proposed Torrance Regional Transit Center in the South Bay area of the region. The study of bringing transit to the twenty six mile freight rail corridor is in a much earlier phase than the Crenshaw Corridor. At this point there is no "opening" date for the project.

The Board also voted to move forward on quad gates for segments of the Gold Line Eastside Extension. After Metro staff and Board members swore up and down that the line was safe when it opened last month, a car was hit by a light rail car over Thanksgiving weekend and two girls walked into cars claiming they were confused by the crossing signals.

After listening to a parade of speakers berate the Board for pushing the Gold Line Eastside Extension's opening before all safety precautions could be taken, Mayor Villaraigosa chimed in wondering why a full Environmental Impact Review was necessary just to install barrier gates. It turns out the quad gates would cause several intersections to get a failing grade because of the traffic congestion that it would create.

However, Villaraigosa, Councilman Jose Huizar and Supervisor Gloria Molina devised a plan to work on a declaration of "no significant impact" for the gate installation that could take less time than an EIR. Just in case the environmental researchers reach the conclusion that there is a significant impact, Metro will be moving forward with an environmental review at the same time.

Noting that even a finding of "no significant impact" would still take a lot of time, Molina joked that they should just find a billionaire in the City of Industry to get the legislature to pass a law allowing Metro to do whatever they want. When Board Chair Ara Najarian asked her if she knew any, she joked that she heard the Mayor had some contacts.

Briefly, the Board also voted to approve the "hybrid" option for the Route 2 Terminus Project, support minority businesses in the Crenshaw Corridor and the Mayor's vision to move and empowered the staff to reach an agreement with Caltrans to widen the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass.