Photo: Cal State L..A

Next Tuesday, Metro CEO Art Leahy will be the featured speaker of the Transit Coalition at their monthly meeting for the second time in as many months.  The reason for Leahy’s return?   There were so many questions at the last meeting, he didn’t have a chance to answer them all.

If you’re like me, and can’t make next Tuesday’s meeting, and have a question for the CEO, feel free to leave it in the comments section.  Transit Coalition Executive Director Bart Reed does read Streetsblog and will take your questions to Leahy.  However, if you want to be 100% sure that your question is asked, there’s nothing like attending the meeting yourself.

If I had a question…While we’ve heard plenty from Metro’s public relations team on the B.R.U. civil rights complaint to the Federal Transit Administration, it might be interesting to hear an opinion from the top man at the agency.

The Coalition meets from 6:46 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. at Philippe The Original, 1001 N. Alameda St. Los Angeles CA. 90012.

Metro bus service is under fire again. Photo:Metrorider14/flickr

Earlier this week, Metro announced another set of proposed cuts to its bus system.  Following so soon on the cuts from just last month, Metro CEO Art Leahy took to The Source to defend the changes.  Oddly, rather than defend the good work being done by the bus division at Metro and push for the state to finally restore funds pledged to transit operations but spent on closing a gap in the general fund.  Instead, he tries to sell the cancellation of nine bus routes and reductions on dozens more.

A full list of the cuts can be found here.  Streetsblog will be covering cuts in each of the service areas in the days leading up to the local hearing in that area.  A list of the hearing schedule can be found here.

I reached out to transit advocates to get their take on the cuts.  The Bus Riders Union sent a quick reply that they’re still working on analyzing the cuts, but that they found the proposal shocking.  The Southern California Transit Advocates, Transit Coalition and San Fernando Valley Service Council Member Kymberleigh Richards all sent in detailed responses both on specific proposed changes and on Leahy’s statements in The Source.

Richards’ statement is particular to changes happening in the San Fernando Valley area, and will be discussed in a later post.  In the meantime, you can read her statement here.

Writing for the Transit Coalition, Faramarz Nabavi takes issue with how the proposed cuts were planned.  Nabavi notes both that several parts of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report that Leahy references to justify the cuts are not taken into account and that such deep cuts may not be needed as sales tax revenue, which provides Metro with its operations subsidy, is rising.  Nabavi’s full statement can be found here.

Metro is going to cut more bus trips, even though sales tax revenues are rising again.  Although improving efficiency is a laudable goal, these changes appear to be based primarily on load factors, rather than eliminating duplication….

Nor are some of the changes proposed by stakeholders that would enable service to “be better integrated with rail service provided by Metro” included here.  For example, the Orange Line runs 10 minute headways midday off-peak and weekends, while the Red Line runs 12 minute headways during these times.  If the Orange Line headway was adjusted from 10 to 12 minutes, riders would have a better service through timed transfers, while Metro would save money.  Note that overcrowding is only a problem during peak hours; this would actually improve the off-peak load factors closer to CEO Art Leahy’s targets.

Other municipal bus services have been increasing service since the 1990's. Photo: SoCalMetro/Flickr

After noting that some of the proposed changes might make sense from a statistical point of view, they won’t make as much sense in practice, Dana Gabbard, a Board Member for the Southern California Transit Advocates and L.A. Streetsblog but speaking for himself, takes issue with the notion that what is best for the agency is also what is best for the riders.  Gabbard’s full statement can be found here.

Hopefully the “additional details” promised after January 17 will include details about ridership and maps that clearly illustrate the changes proposed, plus more in-depth explanations about why these particular proposals have been made. Hopefully the vague statement ”…  the proposed modifications will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the public transportation system through a better use of resources” isn’t the sum total of explanations offered…

…When Leahy speaks of “better service” I can see for the agency many of the proposed changes may be welcome but I am not convinced they necessarily benefit the riders. I see the peak hour bus lanes along Wilshire as a clear signpost of making changes that are improvements that benefit riders.

Speaking of the Bus Rider’s Union, Leahy also takes time to take a swipe at the Bus Riders Union, and the consent decree which led to the addition of thousands of bus service hours every year.

“We’ve had an artificially high level of service because of the consent decree,” he said, referring to improvements that were ordered by a court-approved mediator beginning in the late 1990s after the Bus Riders Union sued Metro. “That has created a focus on running more service rather than better service — without a lot more riders.”

“If we had overloads and super crowded conditions on all our buses, this might not be necessary,” Leahy added. “We do have some overloads and we need to take care of that and address it where it happens. But overall loads are not nearly as heavy as they were 15 or 20 years ago compared to now.”

Not that the Consent Decree doesn’t have more than its share of detractors, (Gabbard writes that “The consent decree WAS myopic in its focus on crowding as the main priority driving bus service allocation for 10 years.), but I have to wonder why Leahy can’t summon a stronger defense of the Metro bus system.  Do some lines perform better, and at a more cost effective rate than others?  Absolutely.  Does Metro have an “artificially high level of service” on some lines?  That can be debated.

According to the National Transit Database, the average passenger load (APL) for Metro buses is 17.1, meaning that on average there are just over seventeen people on a Metro Bus at any given moment.  The only agency in the country that has a higher APL is New York City MTA at 17.9.  For comparison purposes, buses in Boston and Dallas have an APL less than 10.  Even cities that have a pro-transit reputation, such as Chicago at 11.3 or Seattle at 14.3, come in well below Metro.

So it’s all well and good to say that some lines have an artificially high level of service compared to others, but let’s also state that overall the Metro bus system is amongst the most used in the country and well ahead of almost every other metropolitan area.

The BRU nearly flunked Metro's bus service before the December cuts. Wonder what the grade will be when they're done. Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

Combining Leahy’s comments on the Consent Decree with the statement that “Although overall Metro ridership has increased over time, bus ridership has fallen or been flat in the past two decades;” you’re left with the impression that bus ridership has fallen as a result of the Decree.  While the merits of the decree itself can certainly be debated, that ridership has grown on Metro buses since it went into effect cannot.

Between 1996, the year the Consent Decree went into effect, and 2009 Metro bus ridership grew by 42 million boardings per year.  Considering that Metro was allowing municipal carriers to take over service, as Gabbard points out, and that bus service was competing with rail service, that’s not a sign of a system that’s wasting funds.

None of this is to say that cuts aren’t needed or can’t be useful, just that Metro’s bus service is often maligned in the press or public opinion.  Even when cuts are needed, it would be nice for Metro to try to remind people of this.  After all, if the agency won’t strongly defend its services, then why should state legislators listen to advocates when they complain about the state raiding transit funds.

Arts got smarts. Photo: Daily News

Tomorrow night at 7:00 P.M. Metro CEO Art Leahy will speak and take questions at The Transit Coalition's monthly meeting at Philippe the Original in downtown L.A.  Love him or hate him, the affable Leahy has been more open about his plans and vision for Metro with the press and advocates than either his contemporaries at other agencies or predecessors.  He even sat down for a Streetsblog interview last summer.

The Transit Coalition meetings are open to the public, so just show up and be prepared to ask him some questions.  When I spoke with Leahy last summer, he had a lot of information and stories at his fingertips and loved to hit you with facts illustrated by a part of his or the agency's history.

You can read the Coalition's meeting announcement after the jump.

Have you ever wanted to know more about Metro from the top down? Why are some things done and other things not done? Art Leahy, the Metro CEO will present his point of view on how he is running the Authority. He has reorganized the organization and changed top management.

What is next in his development of projects? Oh, there are so many questions. And here is your chance to learn, listen and get some answers. Our speaker may not answer every question, but you'll learn a lot about the way Metro is changing. Find out first hand, by joining us.

First @ 6:55 p.m. we will have introductions and go over some of the latest transit developments.

At 7:05 p.m, we will start the Metro program, so make a goal to be there at the start at 6:45 p.m.

Art will speak and answer questions until 8:10 p.m. and then we will cover the business of other transit activities in Southern CA.

This is your Open Invitation from The Transit Coalition to join us for our Tuesday, June 22, 2010 meeting at Philippe the Original restaurant in China Town from 6:39 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. At this gathering, we will discuss current transportation developments and present a recap of the other transit-related projects underway throughout Southern California.

There will be other reports at the meeting such as Metrolink and Metro and the 30/10 Plan, as well as a review of cuts to transit and state and urban rail service. Also, we will talk about Expo and review the Farmdale PUC hearing from June 1 and some other projects such as the Downtown Connector and Crenshaw.

To attend, see our map, if you need directions. We generally gather downstairs by the cash register, then retire to the meeting rooms upstairs. Do not be fooled by the signs that say the meeting rooms are closed, as they don't apply to us. If you have trouble locating the meeting, call 818-367-1661.

Pass the word. If you or anyone is interested, get them there Tuesday, June 22. Also, note: RSVP.

If we know you are coming, we will look for you, so you don't stay lost from us. Note: If you want to get the an e-mail meeting reminder directly, write and you can get on the list for future events.

To make reservations, write us. Subject: Dinner Reservation Just leave your first/last name, e-mail and phone number. Please pass this e-mail along to anyone who might be interested in joining us. Call if you have any questions.

Thanks, Bart Reed

About The Transit Coalition: The Transit Coalition is a 501[c](3) non-profit whose goal is to increase Transit Options and Mobility in Southern California by mobilizing citizens to press for sensible public
policy to grow our bus and rail network. Ş--Ş--Ş

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.

News website The Daily Beast crunches the numbers from the most congested areas in America and finds, to nobody's surprise, that the worst driving commute in America is right here in Los Angeles.    The Hollywood Freeway ranks as the worst place to commute in the entire country based on rush hour congestion, the worst bottleneck, and the average amount of congestion per week at the worst bottleneck.

Los Angeles' ranking in this survey is hardly a surprise.  A couple of times a year surveys are released that show Los Angeles' car gridlock to create the most pollution, waste the most drivers hours, etc.  No matter the methodology, our highway system isn't working.  What makes this survey interesting, is that they tracked down Metro CEO Art Leahy to explain why the congestion is so thick on the 101.

"I recall they would say things like it's a 20-minute trip downtown on the Hollywood Freeway,” Metropolitan Transportation Authority chief executive Art Leahy says on traffic when he was growing up in Los Angeles. “No one anticipated the congestion that would emerge."

It always amazes me that transportation professionals can look at the disaster that is our local highway system and comment that the traffic growth is a lot heavier than they ever thought; yet expect people to believe estimates on future traffic growth to justify expensive highway projects that won't do anything to solve the long-term problem that there's just too many cars on the road.

Denny Zane is calling on the Measure R Champions and challenging them to engage in a second round of battle, this time mobilizing to embrace the 30/10 campaign which will leverage the anticipated $40 Billion in funding and then expedite the process so that 30 years of transit construction can be completed in the next 10 years.

This "all or nothing" campaign has several anticipated benefits, including significant discounts on American product, significant environmental impact, significant employment opportunities, and, most of all, the completion of the 12 mega-transit projects that are currently in line, all within 10 years.

The MoveLA Camp Meeting was held Monday evening at LACMA’s Brown Auditorium and the invitation came complete with Metro instructions, a touch I appreciate. Of course, the sign-in table offered parking validation, an amenity I will continue to consider as a sign of disconnect until the day it is complemented with free air for my bicycle and Metro tokens for those prefer mass transit.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Metro Boardmember Richard Katz and Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega all addressed the eager audience which included officials and staff from Beverly Hills to San Gabriel alongside consultants and reps from transit non-profits and advocacy groups. The audience nodded eagerly as the "pie-in-the-sky" Long Range Transportation Plan was brought to the "now" and a timeline for the upcoming decade was laid out. Katz and de la Vega both moved quickly over the details of the 30/10 plan, dropping enough data and showing enough graphs to elicit a few "ooh’s" without having to slow down the momentum of the pep rally.

Art Leahy, CEO of the Metro, called on the MoveLA congregation saying "We ought to work together, we’ve got to build a countywide coalition of folks from the westside and San Fernando and San Gabriel and the harbor area and the South Bay Valley and then to go to Washington DC to compete for funds. This place, Los Angeles, is an economic engine and we ought to get our politics in line with that objective to help create the recovery that the Supervisor (Zev Yaroslavsky) was referencing."

Denny Zane closed with a battle cry for support from the Champions who did the heavy lifting on Measure R and who now simply need to work together to accelerate and implement, putting the $40 Billion revenue stream to work changing the world as we know it. This is the beginning of some very interesting times!

Monday Dec. 14 at 6:30 p.m. Move LA and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art are co-sponsoring a public meeting on Strategies to Accelerate the Development of the Wilshire Subway and Other Measure R Projects in Los Angeles County--What You Can Do to Help Implement the Measure R 30-Year Plan in 10 Years!  The meeting will be held at the Museum's Brown Auditorium, in the Art of the Americas building off the Central Court. The Museum is at 5905 Wilshire Bl. just east of Fairfax.

So far we have only been getting the soundbite that Mayor Villaraigosa has a 30 in 10 strategy. I'm curious to finally hear some more details about just what is being proposed and what role interested citizens can have in making this happen. It is an intriguing concept but as always the devil is in the details. So far the only details are a laundry list of strategies to be studied per the Metro Board motion Villaraigosa co-sponsored with Metro Board Chair Ara Najarian at the Dec. Board meeting. Hopefully the presenters at the event will flesh out the skimpy details that the two page document for tomorrow's Metro Board Meeting offers.

Speakers include:

• Art Leahy, Metro CEO
• Richard Katz, Metro Board member
• Jaime de la Vega, Deputy Mayor for Transportation--city of Los Angeles
• Denny Zane, Executive Director of Move LA
• Metro staff with responsibility for planning and government relations of the projects
  

The event is free and open to the public .  For more information, call (310) 310-2390.

Transit service to the location include Metros Rapids on Fairfax and Wilshire (the 780 and 720), a Wilshire Rapid Express during rush hour (the 920), local services (20 on Wilshire, 217 on Fairfax) plus the Fairfax DASH will be ending service just prior to the start of the meeting.

And Leahy appreciates what it means to be an Angeleno. "In Los Angeles people have vision and a belief in exceptionalism. When I say that Los Angeles is the best city in the world and I want it to have the best transit agency people don't bat an eye."

And what does the best transit system in America look like? Leahy professed no favorite project when I asked him if he had a favorite Measure R project, but did get excited and animated when we talked about bus routing. In Leahy's view, Metro's biggest challenge include making the buses run on time, and that buses that arrive and leave early are a bigger problem than those that run late.

"Our schedules are a contract with our customers. And if a bus leaves at 8:41 when it's supposed to leave at 8:42 that's breaking that contract. A bus that leaves a minute early is worse than one that leaves a minute late because someone is going to be waiting much longer than a minute for the next one and it can throw off the entire system. "

Leahy went on to explain that early leaving buses are going to be getting less and less people every time it stops while the other buses trailing are going to get more and more people. The increased boardings and alightings will leave the second bus running farther and farther behind schedule. All because one bus was early, the entire line can be thrown off for hours.

"Think about it this way. If a bus is one minute early on a five minute headway, and the bus behind is late for some reason, that second bus could have 40% more passengers than the one before it. Those passengers are going to think we need more buses, more service; but better service that runs on time would accomplish the same thing."

As a driver, Leahy himself wasn't immune to running ahead of schedule, but he tried not to. He even has a copy of a citation he received for running early framed behind his desk. According to Leahy, 15% of Metro buses actually run ahead of schedule, a number he and his staff are working on lowering. While the passage of Measure R brings new opportunities to Metro, it also requires that staff work harder to, in Leahy's words, "to be worthy of the public trust."

"We need to constantly be working. Constantly be thinking. The public trusted us, and we have to be constantly doing everything we can to be worthy of that."

The other major obstacle facing Metro, and every other transit agency, is funding.

"We're looking at zero state subsidy next year. And that means a $250 million dollar defecit. We're ok for the next 12 months, but after that we could be looking at making some changes."

Leahy, on the right, poses with a bunch of cartoon characters and Bart Simpson. Photo: Blogdowntown

 People seem fascinated with the "local boy makes good" angle of Leahy's story. Leahy, the son of two transit drivers and himself a bus driver in Los Angeles who rose to become the head of the transit agency in the second largest city in the United States. However, according to Leahy, the choice to come back to run Metro wasn't about coming back to where he started.

"It's always great to come home, but I took the job because it's impossible to turn down one of the few jobs in the world where you can make a difference on a grand scale," Leahy responded to the numerous articles that focus on his return to Los Angeles."

We also talked about Leahy's tendency to walk to meetings when he has a chance.

"I'm not anti-car by any stretch, and I don't want to tell you that I'd never take a car if I were running late…but my first day here I had a meeting with the Mayor and people seem shocked that I wanted to walk to City Hall. Three different times I was told there was a car available, but it's just a couple blocks away. There is a time when it doesn't make sense to drive."

As for his own transit and driving habits…

"I take transit here for the most part. It's been three months now and I've driven in twice."

People that are familiar with Streetsblog interviews know that I always end by asking what, if anything, they would change about transportation in Los Angeles if they had a magic wand. Usually this question is one that gives people pause, but Leahy had a quick answer.

"I would want full federal funding for the Subway to the Sea and the Downtown Connector. Not only would we get those projects done as quickly as possible, but we'd also be able to do everything else that we want to do with the other money we'd save."

(editor's note: If you have ever read one of my interviews before, you've probably noticed the format is a little different for this one.  Blame a lost tape recorder and my first time transcribing from short-hand.  We'll be back to our usual format for the rest of this week's interviews.)

Photo of poster appearing outside Metro Board Room by Stephen Box.

The big news from today's Metro Board meeting was that after our leaders subjected themselves to the pain of listening to the public, they were able to sorta-kinda pass the FY 2010 budget and put off a decision on whether to abandon their contract with Ansaldo Breda for another two months.

If this article seems at all sarcastic, angry or mean-spirited it's because the level of governmental dysfunction shown by the Metro Board earlier today was out-of-control.  Apparently the Board had a lot of really important things to do today besides their jobs so they punted on major decisions and tried to rush the public so they could still be there to show support to their favorite projects or special interests.  Picture a science fair where none of the students bothered to research or prepare for the fair.  Then picture all of the participants showing up a half hour late.  That was the feel of today's Metro Board Meeting.

Hint to the Metro Board: You're more likely to be on time to the meeting if you actually take transit instead of driving there yourself.

The FY 2010 Budget

I have to qualify the passage of the budget because before debate on the slew of budget related amendments could be passed, the Board was informed that the bulk of the motions were illegal.  Undaunted, and needing to preserve funding for their special projects, the Board voted to pass the budget in spirit including all amendments that would fund other projects with many of the sources of those funds left T.B.A. 

The projects, such as the Harbor Gateway and Gold Line Foothill Extension, that were to receive extra funds from the budget will receive some sort of funds found from some other place in Metro's deep pockets.   While these projects are now "funded" the Board will have to vote on their funding again next month.  Shockingly, it turns out that the Metro Board can't just change the timetable passed by voters when we approved Measure R last year.  Stupid voters and the public will!  It keeps getting in the way of our rulers best intentions for us.  A full list of all the projects that were sorta-kinda funded can be found under item #9 on today's agenda.

I guess it's a good thing that Metro is running a huge surplus and has money just lying around to fund whatever the Board wants or else I would think that today was an exercise in public relations that had no bearing on reality.  Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

The debate on the FY 2010 Budget came after public comment, passage of the consent agenda, reports by Board Chair Villaraigosa and Metro CEO Art Leahy, the debate on the fate of Ansaldo Breda, and general confusion by the Board.  Pam O'Connor had already left on "city business" and Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas seemed outraged that he was being kept away from whatever else was on his schedule.  The Board seemed annoyed that the public wanted to speak before their vote, with Villaraigosa warning that he was about to lose quorum if the peasants wouldn't put down their damm pitchforks and let the adults get on with real business.  When people still wanted to speak, he relented to state law and Metro's bylaws and let the peasants have their say.

Honestly?  If I were either the Bus Rider's Union or the members of Fix Expo, I would have gotten everyone I could to testify in another language, doubling their speakers time for translation, and basically filibuster the Board.  If they can't be troubled to clear their calendar to do their jobs, it's really not the public's problem.

Comment on the budget resolutions was dominated by political leaders talking up their favorite local project that was due to sorta-kinda get money; South and West L.A. residents demanding a safer Expo Line and B.R.U. members and supporters demanding that any budget with bus cuts get rejected.  While their were some notable exceptions, the Board seemed, well, bored with the process.  Villaraigosa and Ridley-Thomas left.  Board Members Katz and Fasana stood behind Katz's seat and read their blackberries and chatted.  L.A. City Councilman Jose Huizar, Lakewood City Council Woman Diane Duboise and Caltrans representative Doug Failing deserve Gold Stars for at least pretending to care what the public was saying.

The Metro Board will officially pass whatever funding schemes the staff devises for their favorite projects during discussion of the 2009 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan.

Board Punts on Decision on Ansaldo Breda Contract

Personally, I never saw a point in repeating what someone else has already written just to see it appear under my byline.  Blogdowntown's Eric Richardson had an article on the debate and vote of the Metro Board's decision to stick with Ansaldo Breda posted within two minutes of the final vote.

After a contentious negotiation, the board instructed Metro's CEO to negotiate the financial guarantee by June 15, and voted 10-1 to extend the contract option until July 31.

The lone no vote was cast by Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who argued that the transit operator's previous problems with Ansaldo Breda demanded a competitive bid. He asked whether the financial guarantee would "provide cab fare for the people who would be riding the line" if the rail cars don't get built on time.

The only thing I will add is that sticking with its "contempt for the little guy" theme in this month's meeting, Board Member Zev Yaroslavsky cut off what was non-relevant testimony by longtime gadfly John Walsh while he was attacking the Mayor for selling out the city.  However, he didn't see the need to shut off the microphone nor shout for security to remove the speaker while any of the union members or leaders present testified on how the Board needed to support Ansaldo Breda because of the impact it could have on local jobs. 

The Metro Board is legally not allowed to consider where the cars will be built when making the decision to whom to award the contract.  Of course, I would bet the mortgage that eventually Ansaldo Breda will be awarded the final contract without it ever going to open bid.

Villaraigosa Leads Board in Showing Contempt for Public

The clear low light of the day was caused by the contempt shown for the public by the Board at nearly every turn. 

From the sign greeting the public that stated it would stop accepting public comment cards the moment the meeting began bucking the process at every other Metro Board Meeting I've attended, to starting the meeting with public comment instead of ending it delaying votes on crucial issues while we waited for Villaraigosa to grace us with his presence, to Villaraigosa's hour and a half late arrival compounded by his whining that the public's desire to comment on the budget was going to require him to leave before the vote, to the slew of Board Members that hadn't bothered to clear their schedules for the most important meeting of the year; the Board presented the public a picture of a group of elected leaders completely out of touch with reality who view the public as obstacles to their rule.

Hey, he might not have had time to show up to the meeting on time or stay for a vote on the Budget, but at least Board Chair Villaraigosa was able to grandstand during the "Board Chair's Report" and had time to pose for pictures with Metro's entrants in the transit rodeo.

La Linea de Oro

One thing that came up repeatedly in public comment was the renaming of the Gold Line in Boyle Heights to La Linea de Oro.  Despite a Metro press release stating that the renaming had huge public support, a handful of community leaders showed up to wonder who exactly this public was.  They opposed the renaming and pointed out that none of their community groups nor the Neighborhood Council had been asked their opinion.  Maybe LADOT did their public outreach for them.

There were a lot of highlights from last Friday's "21st Century Transportation for Los Angeles" conference sponsored by CalPIRG, but many of them will require more research before I can write a full story on them.  From Asm. Mike Eng's channeling of Gavin Newsom when he declared that the 710 Tunneling Project is going to happen "whether we like it or not" to a discussion of pedi-cabs downtown, there was a lot of interesting discussion.

But when new Metro CEO Art Leahy stepped to the microphone, it provided the first chance for me to get a measure of Leahy and his vision for Metro.

If Leahy is as progressive as his speech, the news is good.  Leahy, who if you missed the press release or haven't spoken to anyone working at Metro recently, is the son of  Los Angeles Transit Lines Yellow Car drivers and began his career as a bus driver himself.  He's been around long enough to have taken transit to a Dodger game, and not on the city's free shuttle last year.

While he wasn't able to give details on a lot of specifics, after all he's been on the job for less than a month, he pledged that public outreach was the most important part of a project design.  In response to a question about Metro crossings, he replied, "We want to know potential issues...we'd rather work with you for solutions you believe in rather than muscle you over."

Leahy also argued forcefully that the state and federal governments need to be more forthcoming to help the agency push back against fare hikes and service cuts.  When asked to outline his top priorities they were to pass and implement the Long Range Plan, operate an efficient and on-time transit service in order to not lose the trust of the public that entrusted them with Measure R and other taxes and to "get to" Pelosi and Boxer the message that we need support for operations, not just building new rail lines.

Now, pretty much every transportation advocate I know has had their heart broken by a politician or bureaucrat who hasn't matched their rhetoric; but Leahy's most promising answer was about his personal habits rather than policy.

When questioned by the Bike Coalition's Dorothy Le about his vision for cyclists and pedestrians, Leahy demanded a transportation system which makes it easier to move about Downtown and in their communities.  Then he added a personal anecdote about his first days at Metro.

Leahy had a meeting with L.A. Mayor and Metro Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa at City Hall.  When Leahy was informed that his car was waiting downstairs he responded that "No, I can walk to Downtown.  I'm not taking a car a couple of blocks."  Whether Leahy was aware of it or not, former Metro boss Roger Snoble took a beating on some blogs for his willingness to take a car to destinations that were transit accesible or within easy walking distance.

So, let's say I'm cautiously optimistic about Leahy.  Combining his speech with a later statement by the Bus Rider's Union's Francisca Porchas that we need to increase operating funds for "bus and rail" and the future for Metro is looking bright.