When Vice President Joe Biden visited Minnesota's New Flyer bus company to tout the economic stimulus law's $8.4 billion investment in transit, hopes were high for a boom in cleaner-burning vehicle production -- which made for some bad press when the nationwide transit funding crunch forced New Flyer to lay off 13 percent of its workers.

But the recession hasn't dampened the economic potential of hybrid bus production, as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) laid out today in a new report [PDF] on the industry. In fact, EDF found, transit bus companies share enough skills and regional foothold with the auto industry -- the map of bus makers pictured above could be mistaken for a map of automakers -- to pave the way for fuel-efficiency advances that would ultimately benefit all vehicles.

After noting that 32 percent of American transit buses do not rely on gas or diesel to run, today's report continues:

The bus industry serves as an important entry point for advanced vehicle technologies, especially in new vehicles that require refueling infrastructure and other major changes. For instance, since transit agencies have a well-defined base of centrally managed fleets, they are ideal for testing and proving plug-in hybrid and all-electric buses — thus leading the way for the passenger car industry.

While U.S. bus companies are well-positioned proving grounds for cleaner-burning vehicles, their export potential remains low, according to the EDF report. That's largely because the largest market for transit buses is China, where demand is expected to grow by 12 percent annually over the next decade -- double the projected growth rate in North America -- and where production standards are markedly lower.

"Emerging countries’ lower technology levels and standards appear to prevent them from competing in industrial country bus markets, while industrial countries’ higher production costs and standards appear to prevent them from competing in emerging country markets," EDF concluded.

Even so, there is a limited opening for bus supply companies to prosper on a global level. About 12,000 of Indianapolis-based Allison Transmission's 14,000 sales have come in China, and Firestone, which produces bus suspensions, has operations in China and India.

A good day for the Gold Line Foothill Extension who's future Monrovia Station is depicted in this image from the Bottleneck Blog.

(editor's note: For more of a blow-by-blow from today's meeting visit the twitter feeds for LA Streetsblog, Soap Box and I Will Ride)

When the process to get from public meetings to a final vote takes over a year and a half, you can't expect the final vote to come without a fight and without some theatrics.  With people in costume actually outshining uber-gadfly John Walsh, Board-Member-for-a-Day Tom LaBonge pinch hitting for his colleague on the City Council Jose Huizar and perhaps strangest of all a short, supportive completely non-snarky comment by Stephen Box the meeting took over five hours but ended with a result most were happy with: a finalized Long Range Transportation Plan.

But the stars of today's hearing were not the people in the audience and those testifying, but a pair of County Supervisors from opposite ends of the County: Gloria Molina and Mark Ridley-Thomas.  Each found an effective way to advocate for their favored local project.  Per their styles, Molina used a "woe-is-me" strategy combined with a level of histrionics while Ridley-Thomas refused to back off his amendment to the plan which, while hardly earth shattering, could lead to accelerated time-lines for two of Metro's more controversial projects.

The key provision of the Ridley-Thomas ammendment mostly are aimed at protecting funding for buses, require staff to aggressively pursue federal funds for the Gold Line Foothill Extension and Crenshaw Corridor Project, require Metro to provide operations dollars for the Foothill Extension whenever it is completed and required quarterly updates on three highway widenings.  The aptly named The Source has the original wording of the amendment or you can find it on the Metro Board Agenda if you feel the urge to scroll through it.  However, you need to go to the Supervisor's website to get the final wording of the amendment that passed.

So what does this mean?  It means that the highway and rail projects that were approved in Measure R are now officially part of Metro's plans for the future.  A time-line was adopted, that you can read here, but as Metro earns federal funds and projects complete their environmental phases those time-lines can be amended.   You can find a quick outline of those time-lines here.  Also passed today were rules protecting the 20% of Measure R dedicated to buses and a $324 million projected budget for bicycle and pedestrian projects over the next 30 years.  And, as the Bus Riders Union tried just about every way imaginable to warn us, it means future fare hikes.

Now that the plan is approved, Metro can officially lobby the state and federal governments for the money to build the highway and transit projects within the plan.  If the plan had not been passed, supporters argued that it would be a disaster for Metro and Los Angeles County.  That bold declaration makes me wonder why they didn't pass it any other time in the past twenty months since they held public hearings.

On its twitter feed, I Will Ride announced that the Gold Line Foothill Extension and Crenshaw Corridor were placed as a priority ahead of the Westside Subway for "New Starts" funding, but given the unanimous passage of the LRTP and the Mayor's fixation on the Subway to the Sea, I'll believe that those projects get dollars ahead of the Subway when I see it.  (editor's note: In the comments section Dan Wentzel explains that Crenshaw and Foothill were moved ahead of only Phases IV and V of the Subway to the Sea.  The Subway extension from Wilshire-Western to Westwood remain ahead of Foothill and Crenshaw.)

As for Molina's part, she took the floor for the better part of a half hour with other local stakeholders concerned with the safety for the Eastside Extension, due to open in November.  In an angry rant in which she accused the Metro staff of favrotism and outright lieing to her, Molina channeled both Damien Goodmon and the Bus Rider's Union as she went on the warpath against just about everyone on the dais except Metro CEO Art Leahy who she felt was trying to help make the line safe as best he could.  The strangest part of her rant was where she said she would be at the opening, assuring her constituents the line was safe, even though she wasn't sure that it would be.

While I give Molina a hard time, her criticisms sound similar to those voiced by former Board Member and City Council Transportation Committee Member Richard Alarcon, who has also been vocal that he doesn't trust Metro staff.  That makes two prominent Latino officials who have intimate knowledge of the Board expressing district and concerns.  I can't help but wonder if maybe Metro has a Latino problem.

Photo: LA Wad/Flickr

I'd like to begin by stating I have nothing but admiration for activist Harold Katz's nearly 40 years of involvement with traffic and transportation issues in Los Angeles. But respectfully I think he is wrong headed in his recent commentary for CityWatch titled "Bus-Only Lane will Turn Wilshire into Traffic Mess."

I am not going to engage in a battle of statistics--my focus is on the larger picture.  I would have to believe to some extent the concerns raised about auto accidents being caused by the bus lane can be addressed by their design and associated mitigation measures. I don't see a fatal flaw in the basic concept of the lanes. And I don't know why there is a concern the project will result in a unending stream of LAPD motorcycle traffic officers giving out traffic tickets to poor innocent auto drivers victimized by the big bad bus lanes.  

The unstated premise is that facilitating automobiles is the ultimate goal of improving mobility. When Harold decries that in his view a "bus rider will save 5 minutes and the thousands of auto drivers will lose 26 minutes" he avoids the question how many bus riders will benefit and whether the improvement for bus users exceeds the cost to auto drivers.

The El Monte busway proves a single lane used by high capacity vehicles can carry as many people as 4-5 lanes of mixed flow traffic; Wilshire has the potential to have similar results. The lanes also have incredible symbolic value --  instead of the lipservice long paid to the goal of our region being committed to having mass transit NOT automobiles as its priority it will be expressed as a tangible part of the landscape in the form of these lanes. And if Wilshire is a success it will be a model for other bus lanes. The 1995 Metro Long Range Transportation Plan included what was supposed to be 101 miles of bus lanes along major arterials. After all these years isn't it time to implement that long deferred part of our new vision of our future transportation network?

By the way, along most of Wilshire the curb lanes are only available for parking during non-peak hours. The bus lanes only reallocates them for buses in the peak hours, so "the parking question" Harold hints at I think is moot.

Bus lane free. Photo: LA Wad/Flickr

Yesterday's full Los Angeles City Council meeting ran extraordinarily late due to a potential lawsuit between the Controller and the City Attorney. The council's Transportation Committee meeting, previewed last week here and here, was scheduled for 2:00 P.M. but didn't begin until after 4:30 P.M. By then, most of the Department of Transportation (LADOT) staff had left. Remaining were a little more than half of the initial 30+ yellow-t-shirt clad Bus Riders Union members, a half-dozen Comstock Hills homeowners, and a couple of bicyclists.

Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl apologized profusely for the delay, and, with fellow committee members Alarcón, Koretz and LaBonge in attendance, immediately launched into the most contentious agenda item: the LADOT's recommendation that the city move forward with full environmental review of the federally-funded peak hour bus-only lanes on Wilshire Boulevard.

Paul Koretz is the newly elected Council Member representing the city's 5th district, which includes the Comstock Hills, aka the "condo canyon," stretch of Wilshire between Beverly Hills and UCLA. The bulk of the opposition to the bus-only lane project has come from this area. Among the committee, Koretz was the most openly skeptical of the project - asking a number of questions, including if the project is a "disaster" could it be removed? LADOT staff responded that they "didn't want to go there" and reassured Koretz that their calculations showed a very modest impact on traffic. DOT stated that estimates show a 3-5 minute delay for cars driving the entire corridor, with a corresponding 24% reduction in the time it takes for a bus to go the same length.  Koretz ultimately moved the motion to fund the environmental study at Rosendahl's suggestion.

Council Member LaBonge questioned whether the route could go to other high-volume destination centers like Century City;  LADOT countered that Wilshire itself is a destination-rich corridor, indeed "the number one bus line in the United States."

Four Bus Riders Union speakers testified in support of the project and the important precedent it will set. Speakers representing the Green L.A. Transportation Working Group and the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition also spoke in favor. Homeowners expressed their displeasure at the planned bus lanes which they stated would be "dangerous" for residents getting into and out of driveways, and negatively impact trash trucks, mail delivery, ambulances, and fire engines.

Rosendahl diplomatically thanked speakers for raising important issues and suggested that the full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process would be where all these benefits and costs can get full public airing. The committee unanimously approved the motion for the project EIR to proceed, including directing LADOT to report back in 90 days. The motion (08-2595-S1) will now be scheduled for a vote of the full city council.

Running very late, the committee then spent less than three minutes approving LADOT's proposed contract for ShelterCLEAN to maintain the Orange Line Bike Path (09-2120) and continued the rest of the agenda to future meetings.

(Editor's Note: Linton is Chair of the Green L.A. Transportation Working Group and is an unabashed supporter of the Wilshire Bus-Only Lanes project.)

Fairgoers in Minnesota depart a private charter bus that benefited from federal rules barring competition with public transit agencies. (Photo: Star-Trib)

This year, it's Minnesota State Fair attendees who are contending with privatized bus service that left them waiting for hours and caused "ugly scenes," as the local Star-Tribune reports today.

The rule was intended to shield "private charter operators from unfair competition by federally subsidized public transit agencies," as the Bush administration wrote in its initial regulatory justification. 

As a result, public transit agencies were barred from offering bus services to special events if a private company was able to do the job instead. The rule prompted outcries from the American Public Transportation Association, but it has yet to be overturned by the Obama administration.

In a June letter to senior members of the House transportation committee, 19 lawmakers -- three of them Republican -- asked for the rule to be reversed in the next long-term federal infrastructure bill. From the letter, spearheaded by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and David Dreier (R-CA):

By making public transit agencies ineligible to provide what has always been considered public transit service, this ill-advised [Federal Transit Administration] rulemaking contradicts federal goals to encourage public transportation to alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality nationwide.

Charter bus service is reserved and exclusive service to events, many of which are traditionally open only to a select group. Service open to any member of the public to board and ride, without advance reservation, to a public event has always been considered public service and that definition should be restored.

That long-term infrastructure bill is likely to be delayed for at least a year at the request of the White House, however. The question is whether the FTA is willing to undo the pro-privatization rule on its own before the bill is taken up.

Photo: Marco Siguenza/Flickr

Even with Measure R, not even Metro is immune to bus service cuts.

At 2:30 this afternoon, Metro will hold its public hearing on the staff-proposed 2010 budget.  The budget will also be heard at next week's Full Board Meeting before being voted on.  The budget doesn't contain a lot of surprises, but tucked in the middle of the budget is news that Metro is planning on 120,000 hours of bus service cuts.

But first, the good news.  Metro still plans on opening the Eastside Extension of the Gold Line later this calendar year and work on the Orange Line Canoga Extension is also going according to plan.  As for the bad news, Metro lists construction of the I-405 Widening as it's top construction accomplishment and of course there are the service cuts.

Metro claims the bus cuts are really just "creating greater efficiency" in their bus operations.  In Metro's defense, 120,000 hours is a small fraction of the nearly 7.6 million hours of bus service that will remain.  The budget doesn't spell out what lines will see cuts.  Given the battle over 200,000 hours of planned cuts that was rejected by the Metro Board and Mayor Villaraigosa in 2008; next Thursday won't be the last time these cuts are debated in public.

But why are their cuts at all?  Didn't L.A. County pass a huge transit tax last year, at least part of what is going to bus service?  Anyone following Streetsblog or Sacramento politics regularly already knows the answer, but if you don't believe me, consider this email from So.CA.TA's Kymberleigh Richards.

I blame that completely on the state Legislature and Gov. Schwarzenegger, for canceling the State Transit Assistance account payments.

Given the rejection last night of a series of ballot propositions that would have helped the state balance its budget, it is wildly unlikely that the movement to restore state transit cuts is going to be successful anytime in the near future.  While Metro is looking at ways to tighten its belt in the coming months, and elected leaders call on them to reject cuts as they did last year; let's remember that these same Assemblymen and Senators are complicit in the budget deals that robbed Metro of its operating subsidy in the first place.

Yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled in the case of the Bus Rider's Union (BRU) v. MTA over the matter of whether or not to extend the 1996 "Consent Decree."  At issue was whether or not Metro was in "substantial compliance" with the standards set out in the decree: i.e. whether Metro had expanded bus service, held down fares, and reduced overcrowding in poorer areas of the city where people were reliant on transit and service was sub-par. 

In a split decision, the court ruled that Metro did sufficient work to meet the Decree's goals and that the decree has expired.  The ruling was carefully written not to say that Metro did a bang-up job of meeting all of its targets, but that the BRU couldn't prove that Metro was grossly negligent.

[10] We hold that BRU has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in finding that MTA had substantially complied with the consent decree. The evidence presented supported the district court’s finding that the imperfections with respect to load factor targets were de minimis in LABOR/COMMUNITY v. L.A. COUNTY MTA 5221 relation to the overall scheme of things. Because the first prong of the Rufo test fails, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend the decree.

Basically, the court is stating that the MTA wasn't in full compliance, but that they were close enough.  While I'm certain that Metro is happy with the decision both because they don't have to negotiate plans with the BRU and because it means that the agency has done a better job of serving its most vulnerable users.  It is doubtful the BRU will view the ruling in the same light.

Just like any court challenge, this one isn't over until all appeals are exhausted, and because there was some dissent on the judicial challenge, an appeal is likely to be heard.

If you're interested in reading through the entire decision, it can be found here.

Following up on Sarah's post about transit funding woes in Illinois, this CNN segment from earlier in the month brings home the effect of service cuts and fare hikes in St. Louis. Similar scenarios are playing out all over the country. According to the latest tally from Transportation for America, 85 transit systems serving 22 million riders are facing some combination of shrinking service and higher fares.

Around the country, many of our largest transit agencies are dealing with massive deficits by cutting back service and laying off employees.  New York City Streetsblog has pretty much been devoted to round-the-clock coverage of NYCMTA's proposed cuts, the politics behind them and the effort to stop them.

Closer to home, our neighbors in Orange County are facing a 25% cut in OCTA bus trips and laying off over 400 drivers.  The plan doesn't have specific roots designated for cuts, just a mandate from the board to make these cuts and for the staff to get creative.  These cuts would be in addition to the 133,000 hours in cuts that have already been ordered in the last nine months, some of which haven't gone into effect.

So far the only organized opposition to the cuts comes from a local Teamsters branch representing the bus drivers.  Naturally, this has led to OCTA staff noting that if the drivers were willing to give up their 4% mandated raise in July, the total cut would drop by 10%.

Meanwhile, the progressive online outpost in Orange County, the OC Progressive, came up with it's own plan to reduce the service cuts by streamlining other parts of the OCTA budget:

OCTA could take less money for the local transit fund for administration,which sucks $8 million a year from the bus fund for administrative overhead - including  its wasteful $11 million a year external affairs budget. This year's external affairs budget shows $4.8 million in costs for 45 employees as well as 3.4 million for professional service, like the $5,000 a month they pay Republcan party chair Scott Baugh every month. Putting 8 million a year back into paying for bus services would go a long way to staving off cutbacks.

This would let the other major source of revenue - Measure M funding, carry the administrative burden.

Listening to yesterday's meeting, where the board voted to continue to study a $3.9 billion tunnel under the Santa Ana River, it's obvious that there's plenty of room for eliminating waste by cutting back on consultants contracts.

OCTA could cut back the rates it pays to consultants and defer some of the planning that it's doing. Why spend a lot of money building an Anaheim Regional Transit Center if you've cut the bus services that are at the core of regional transit?

OCTA could rely on its reserves more and work aggressively to restore state revenue.

One of the "few buses" we won't be seeing again this season.

That's not exactly how he phrased it, instead he mixed his message on last season's Dodger Shuttle, the bus service that moved an average of just over 700 people to and from the stadium for the second half of the season and post season:

"The trolley has been a fantastic success," McCourt said. "But it's a few buses. We need robust, muscular public transit for Dodger Stadium to be a vibrant place. But that applies to the whole city, doesn't it?"

Putting aside the reality that a 2008 federal law makes it difficult for agencies to provide transit service to sports teams, the Dodgers have refused to do anything to help the city cut the $400,000 price tag to run shuttle service for the season.  As originally reported last week at Blogdowntown, the team refused to help line up sponsors for the shuttle, in violation of its agreement last season with the City Council.

I do appreciate the regionalism and pride  that causes people to root for the local 9.  But given the team's lack of loyalty to its fans, especially those that can't afford tickets and parking; I have to suspect that at some point their fans will start showing the Dodgers the same respect they are shown.

Photo: The Los Angeles Dodgers

Tae Soon Jeon Speaks at Today's Rally. Photo via Bus Rider's Union

This morning, the Bus Rider's Union, including members from South and East L.A., and civic leaders from Koreatown gathered to ask the MTA to support the BRU's Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan.  Their plan calls for increased funding and expansion of Metro's bus fleet and a rollback fo the 2007 fare hike by using Measure R and federal stimulus dollars over time.  They also pointed out that while Metro staff had released a report earlier in the week that called for some short-term improvements, there was also language in the report that called for fare hikes in the next couple of years and long-term cuts in bus service as different rail projects come online.

The BRU's Jude Redman explains the need for expanded bus service and how it can stimulate the economy:

In these tough economic times it is even more crucial that we have an expansion of the bus system to get people to and from desperately needed jobs, and allowing for those seeking employment to be able to accept jobs that aren’t traditionally 9-to-5: hospital workers, food preparers, security guards, refinery workers, custodians and airport personnel who work late nights and weekends.   I have had to turn down many a  job because there was no service after a certain hour, or it would mean I had to stand on a corner, for up to an hour, at night. Expanding 500 buses will not only create more frequent service and less wait time for us but it will also create 2,875 more unionized green jobs in LA alone.

After the jump you can see what the Bus Riders Union Clear Air and Economic Justice Plan would have for K-Town.

500 New Expansion Buses –Buy and operate 500 new buses for LA County.  In K-town reducing overcrowding is a high priority where some of the most overcrowded bus lines run like Wilshire, Vermont, Western, and Olympic. For many Korean elders frequenting local businesses in Koreatown improving mid-day and weekend service on local lines means reducing waiting times, often at shelter less bus stops.  In an era of high unemployment, expanding mobility to jobs, schools, clinics and recreation centers for bus riders also creates over 2, 875 new green jobs in L.A. alone.

Reverse the 2007 Fare Increase – What bus riders really need is a $20 monthly bus pass!  We believe that the MTA Board can begin this by reversing the 2007 fare increase, including restoration of the $52 monthly bus pass. It could save a bus rider at least $120 a year, and hundreds more in a family with multiple bus riders. Measure R guarantees a one-year fare freeze for regular fares and ongoing freeze for seniors and disabled riders. But in these hard times, when families are forced to make hard choices to keep afloat, reducing fares is the only sensible thing to do.  Furthermore many families in Koreatown are starting to take advantage of the buses because of the economic downturn and lowering fares is the most effectiveway to attract new ridership and maintain the ones who are using it. In fact, as the LA Times reported earlier this week, MTA ridership peaked two-years ago prior to the July 2007 fare increase.

$150 Million Bus Only Lane Program – Bus-Only Lanes are the present and the future and we should have them on major street corridors and freeways throughout the county.  They speed up bus service. They prioritize public transportation, pedestrians and bikes over single passenger automobiles and of course reduce greenhouse gases and improve public health.With limited space for cars (already 2/3 of LA is dedicated to them!), traffic, and global warming, cars can no longer be the primary mode of transportation in Koreatown.

No Service Cuts – Expansion, Not Reductions! – Given that L.A. residents will be paying close to 10-cents per taxable dollar (including three separate transit sale taxes), L.A. residents and bus riders need service expansions, not reductions. New bus lines and improved service in South LA, Southeast LA, and the San Fernando Valley (historically with least service and targetted for MTA service cuts) would allow more access for elders visiting their families living outside of Koreatown and central LA.

Remember last year when the Dodgers announced that for the first time in years transit service would come back to Dodger Stadium?  It was a pretty great event, the Mayor was there and over 700 people a game used the free bus service to get the people to the stadium every day.  All in all, it was a pretty great story from last year.

Sadly, like a lot of great starts, the story probably won't end well.

Well, between the city's budget crisis and the Dodgers' refusal to put any money into the "trolley" service, it looks as though the shuttle will go down as a half a season success that won't be repeated.  The LADOT doesn't believe they can run the service at cost, i.e. break even charging people for the service and doesn't have the money to keep the service in place and the Dodgers just flatly refuse to fund it claiming that transit services shouldn't be paid for by private entities.

Currently, the LADOT is trying to find other private sources but is recommending that if no new private sources step to the plate soon, then the LADOT reccomends that the city cancel the program for the 2009 season.  Why anyone besides the Dodgers would be interested in paying for this service, even if there were some sort of advertising or other deal attached.

This sad state of affairs isn't news to people that have been following the saga of the succesful pilot program for awhile.  The impass between the Dodgers and LADOT has been ongoing since the pilot program ended last fall when the Philadelphia Phillies ended the Dodgers' season.  The City Council has backed the LADOT with Councilman Bill Rosendahl publicly blasting the Dodgers for not stepping up.

It was about a year ago to the day that I wrote my first story for Los Angeles Streetsblog where I took a story from the old StreetHeat blog and re-wrote it with more details, text, and links to show the difference between Streetsblog and StreetHeat.  It was about the effort to bring back transit service to Dodger Stadium.  In the story, I commented that it seemed rushed to be trying to get a service up and running for baseball season when Spring Training is already underway.  I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Forbes Magazine recently conducted a survey to determine which cities are getting better and which are getting worse for commuters.  Surprisingly, Los Angeles appears on the list of top ten cities for improving commutes, coming in at #6.

The analysis was based on improvements in road conditions, percent of commuters taking transit and delay the average commuter faces because of congestion.  LA's ranking was based in large part on the growth in transit ridership from 4.6 percent of all commutes in 2000 to 6.1 percent in 2007.

While it's encouraging to see transit usage being such a big part of their formula, and that the growth in the percent of commuters who use transit in L.A. is strong compared to the rest of the country, Forbes analysis still isn't taking into account that a lot of commuters don't use any sort of motorized travel for their commute.  Yesterday, I had to travel to and from the campus of USC, and riding my bike experienced no delay due to automobile congestion.

Photo: Sklathill/Flickr

The House version of President Obama's stimulus plan has left bus riders with nothing to look forward to but stiff fare hikes and painful service cuts. Bus systems got zero in immediate operating support from the bill that passed yesterday -- stunning neglect compared to the $150 billion in educational "operating assistance" to local schools and universities and $127 billion in emergency health care "operating assistance" to state Medicaid and private insurance programs. A relatively puny request for $2 billion in transit operating support was shot down before even reaching committee.

Buses carry 59 percent of American transit riders and are the core of transit service in both urban and small town settings. But according to the New York Times:

Fifty-one transit systems have recently proposed service cuts or fare increases... (which) make it harder for people to get to work (or look for work), and they will undermine one of the long-term goals of the stimulus package: laying the groundwork for a greener economy.

The burden of these transit cuts falls disproportionately on African Americans, who comprise 38 percent of all bus riders in the country, compared to 12 percent of the overall population. (There's a reason that Rosa Parks acted for her civil rights on a bus.)

Unfortunately, the Obama administration and the House of Representatives have largely forsaken bus riders. It is now up to the Senate to provide emergency transit operating help to sustain service and reduce fare hikes. Otherwise, Americans will watch billions of stimulus dollars rain down on schools and hospitals while major transit systems teeter on the edge of insolvency, green collar jobs are cut, and energy-conserving transit riders are forced into cars.

There are a number of reasons why bus riders have lost out so badly in the struggle for stimulus help. One is that they have no effective lobby in Washington. This is partly the result of conventional thinking that hasn't caught up to the current crisis. Transit agencies and advocates tend to equate "transit" with "infrastructure" or capital expenditures, so the federal government is not expected to help with operating expenses. This formulation is generally biased against buses, which are cheap to buy but relatively costly to operate.

The "transit=capital" formula also ended up hurting overall transit aid because Obama fiscal czar Larry Summers believes that transit projects take too long to get underway, and are not a good way to inject money quickly into a depressed economy. Unlike local schools, whose teachers' unions made a strong case for an unprecedented infusion of $150 billion in federal operating help, transit agencies and their supporters have kept fighting for more capital aid and have not pressed their elected officials for the emergency operating help needed to bail out the nation's floundering bus and transit systems. This must change. The same arguments for emergency help to schools apply to bus service.

The failure of the stimulus to help bus riders will have big implications for the working class and poor Americans hardest hit by the recession: Bus riders will be spending more for less service, while green collar transit workers will face rounds of layoffs. It's bad public policy, bad urban policy and inequitable social policy. Not what bus riders were hoping for when they voted for Obama.

One year ago, during Metro's bi-annual revision of its bus schedule, Metro released a schedule of proposed cuts, that was universally panned by pretty much every transit advocate in town, from Bart Reed, to Kymberleigh Richards to Damien Goodmon to the Bus Rider's Union.  After a nearly universal bad reception, Mayor and Board-Chair-In-Waiting cut a political deal to delay the cuts.

In the past year, the landscape has changed for Metro and other transit agencies.  Measure R has passed, with 20% of the budget going to transit operating funds, but the state is promising to cut transit funds and there is little hope that the federal government is going to step in and pick up the slack.  In this landscape, Metro has released it's proposed bus service changes that would go into effect in June.

For a full list of the changes, please you can see Metro's press release or for an easier read check out MetroRider's breakdown of the changes.  Personally, I'm not thrilled that the 714, the only Rapid Line I ever use, that runs down Beverly is going to be replaced with increased local service on the 14 along the same route.

While most of the proposed changes are cuts in service in some form or another, the public outcry isn't nearly as loud as it was last year at this time.  The cuts were announced in a press release last week, and so far the only public comments available are from the Southern California Transit Advocates who offer a mixed bag of support and opposition.  The Bus Rider's Union website hasn't been updated since the fall election and thus far the Transit Coalition hasn't released those awesome colored maps they did last year.

Nevertheless, the first public hearing will be held next week on February 4th at the San Fernando Valley Service Sector meeting.  A full schedule of service sector meetings can be found on Metro's website, but this year they won't be holding a meeting at Metro H.Q. to address all the proposed changes at once.

Photo: Biofriendly/Flickr

Riders on a Seattle bus in 1952. Photo from the Seattle Municipal Archives via Flickr.

How hard can it be to find culturally significant people, or just plain old interesting people, on a bus? Despite all the hot press that heavy rail, high-speed rail, light rail, and subway trains have been getting lately, it is a little-spoken fact that of ALL the transit trips in the United States, bus trips made up 57.5% of the total transit trips taken through the third quarter of 2008. That is 4,699,270,000 (that's billions) trips by bus between January 2008 and September 2008. 

It's our sense that bus riders are disproportionately underrepresented in the blogosphere as well, although the post gives a nod to fellow Streetsblog Network members Bus Bench, Boise Bus Blog, and Bus Chick.

Also today, a very thought-provoking entry from Eric Britton at New Mobility ThinkPad. Eric is calling on transpo geeks everywhere to make 2009 the "Year of the Woman in Transportation":

Transportation policy and investments up to now has been shaped almost exclusively by males — and not just any males but males with jobs, more or less decent university educations, a full place in the community, and a generally serene view of the future. And oh yes, to a man, owners and drivers of cars. (A word of self-disclosure here: I have just pretty well described myself.)

Head over to his site and take a look at his extensive and well-researched proposal for involving more women in the discussion of transportation policy. It's an idea that we'll follow up on in more depth later.

Hey, we just noticed something. Is it just a coincidence that all the bus blogs mentioned above feature at least some female contributors?

Watch this instructional video from the Transit Authority of River City (that's Louisville, Kentucky), and trust me, you won't be able to dislodge the chorus from your head for days. I never thought of bus-mounted bike racks as the stuff of infectious music videos, but I was wrong -- egregiously wrong.

Active Living by Design has the full story on this stroke of marketing genius, produced after a survey revealed that many young women in Louisville wanted to use the bike racks but didn't know how. A follow-up vid on bus etiquette is in the works.

Any chance this starts some sort of viral trend that extends all the way to New York City Transit's PSAs?

An editorial in today's Los Angeles Times calls for Metro to cut bus lines with low ridership so it can avoid raising fares or spending too much of it's Measure R windfall on operations:

The MTA is projecting a $134-million deficit for the fiscal year that starts in July. Though Measure R will bring in additional money for operations, it won't take care of the agency's fundamental structural deficit, which exists mainly because transit fares are so low that they cover only 28% of operating expenses. There's a way to fix the deficit without raising fares, but it requires the MTA board to cut inefficiencies -- such as bus lines that are used by only a handful of riders. So far, it has lacked the political courage to do so. Unless that changes, voters will see less bang for their sales-tax buck.

Despite the Times' editorial, it seems unlikely that the Metro Board is going to work on service cuts anytime soon.  Last year, after a public process that took the entire winter and a lot of the Spring, Mayor Villaraigosa led a group of Board Members to reject the cuts submitted by the staff.  During the hearings on the cuts, bus riders poured their hearts out begging for their favorite local lines that were heading to the chopping block. 

Instead of aiming their slings at a Metro Board who acted to defend the rights of late night bus riders; perhaps the Times could aim it's arrows at state legislators who look at state transit taxes as just another pot to help them balance their budgets.

Anyone worried that the Metro Board of Directors, with an estimated $40 billion in hand to spend over the next 30 years, was going to break the bank right out of the bank can breathe a sigh of relief.  Concerns over federal and state funding measures, and how it impacts our plans for Measure R funds locally, dominated the debate at today's Board Meeting.

On the federal level, both organizations and the Board pledged to work towards a re-authorization of the Federal Transportation Trust Fund that would pledge more funds towards transit and projects that encourage alternative transportation as opposed to just highway projects with a small set-aside for transit.  Even the Bus Rider's Union was on board.

Mayor Villaraigosa also led a discussion on how a true stimulus package, if the Obama administration is serious about stimulating hte economy be investing a lot of money in infrastructure, should focus on projects that alrady have a local match available.  Villaraigosa argues that then the federal dollars would actually multiply if they were allocated for projects in areas where people actually have money to spend on transit projects.  In other words, because LA County has the highest tax dedicated towards transportation, the federal government should reward us by finally investing in Los Angeles as we deserve.

The Board's concerns with the state are less, "are we going to get the new funds we deserve" and more the "is Schwarzenegger going to rob transit to balance the budget...again..." variety.  With the state budget crisis constantly looming, and the Governor's history of robbing funds "dedicated" to transit to balance the budget; the Board has decided to move cautiously on it's bus expansion plans so that if the governor robs transit operating subsidies...again...they will be able to cover the backlog without hiking fares.  So, for now, the dreams of bus-only lanes running throughout the city have to be put on hold while we wait for the state to figure out their budget mess.

In the meantime, Metro is going to focus on creating a new bus plan to spend the $8 billion in Measure R funds provided they don't need to cover any shortfalls in state allocations.  The text of the Mayor's initial resolution to make a new bus plan can be found after the jump.

VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors:
A. Direct the CEO to solicit feedback through the Service Sectors on what type of bus service improvements are wanted by the public by February 2009
B. Provide to the MTA Board and municipal operators by March 2009 with an estimate of the MTA and municipal operator portions of Measure R 20% using the formula allocation procedure (FAP)
C. Direct the CEO to coordinate with the municipal operators to avoid service duplication or other inefficiencies, including requesting information on how each municipal operator intends to spend its portion of Measure R 20% funds
D. Direct the CEO to report back during the March 2009 Board cycle with recommendations for a new “Bus System Improvement Plan” for MTA’s portion of Measure R 20% funding that considers, but is not limited to:
1. New clean fuel bus purchases
2. Additional fare freeze or fare reduction
3. Added bus lines
4. More frequent service
5. Longer hours of operation

Photo: StuckinSuburbia4/Flickr

Tucked away at the end of last week's City Council meeting was an update on the Dodger Shuttle, the city-provided bus service to Dodger Stadium that ran for the second half of the baseball season and the playoffs.  In brief, the program was an overwhelming success.  Transporting over 700 riders each way, the program averaged 1,406 total boardings per game.

However, as often happens with transit programs, success breeds funding problems.  In this case, the need for more shuttles, and the Dodgers playoff run, ballooned the cost to the city, which provided the shuttles for free with no financial support from the Dodgers, from $70,000 to $150,000.  The cost of providing the shuttles for next season, even taking into account the new proposed fare of $3 for a round trip ticket is over $380,000.

For at least one City Councilman, that cost may be too high.  City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who was very critical of the Dodgers for not ponying up some funds for the pilot project this season, pressed the LADOT on Friday on whether the Dodgers were going to be any more giving next season, the answer?  Not likely.

With Downtown Businesses taking a lead by funding more the extended hours for DASH and Metro trains on weekends, the likelihood that the shuttle will continue during a budget crisis is somewhat dimmed.  With all of the public relations surrounding the launch of the shuttle, it's unlikely that the city would just let it fall to the wayside completely, but to have the transit service that the city needs it will probably involve some investment from the Trolley Dodgers, an investment beyond writing press releases and designing a trolley logo.

Photo: Los Angeles Streetsblog "Elected Leaders" Photostream