Comments on: Local Advocates Mourn “Death of Transit” as Part of National Campaign http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/22/advocates-mourn-death-of-transit-in-oakland-as-part-of-national-campaign/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:38:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sylvia http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/22/advocates-mourn-death-of-transit-in-oakland-as-part-of-national-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-19151 Sylvia Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:29:27 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=10841#comment-19151 I am for HR 2746 (30% federal tax dollars to be used for transit operations). At this point every avenue should be exercised to ensure quality day-to-day operations of public works; that includes public transportation. The thing is that we still need to make sure these fed dollars are duly-distributed by transit authorities. I tend to agree with Richard M's comment above that MTC's real agenda is to transfer public wealth to private control. With the SFO-Millbrae capital expansion the target population to benefit were frequent flyers and tourists from the outlying Bay Area communities. When it was time to pay up, Millbrae couldn't pay because that abundant fare, tourism income never happened. The price ticket was passed on to innercity bus and BART riders and taxpayers by minimum fare, parking increases and longer wait times for fewer trains. History threatens to repeat itself with the Airport Connector rail project. The local taxpayers (that means the urban and suburban taxpayers--including 3 commissioners) that attended the 7/22/09 MTC budget meeting--which I was there also--believe there is a more financially sound alternative to the 500 million dollars and climbing price tag on the rail Oakland Airport Connector project. A capital project that is promising to be much more, if MTC's past track record holds true. Well, there were more against the approval of the Airporter plus the 3 commissioners that voted "nay". Anyway the joint commissioners voted to proceed full speed ahead despite the red flags raised. Time to bust up that social club for the elite and bring in some real representatives 'representative' of all Bay Area residents' transit needs. I am for HR 2746 (30% federal tax dollars to be used for transit operations). At this point every avenue should be exercised to ensure quality day-to-day operations of public works; that includes public transportation. The thing is that we still need to make sure these fed dollars are duly-distributed by transit authorities. I tend to agree with Richard M’s comment above that MTC’s real agenda is to transfer public wealth to private control. With the SFO-Millbrae capital expansion the target population to benefit were frequent flyers and tourists from the outlying Bay Area communities. When it was time to pay up, Millbrae couldn’t pay because that abundant fare, tourism income never happened. The price ticket was passed on to innercity bus and BART riders and taxpayers by minimum fare, parking increases and longer wait times for fewer trains. History threatens to repeat itself with the Airport Connector rail project. The local taxpayers (that means the urban and suburban taxpayers–including 3 commissioners) that attended the 7/22/09 MTC budget meeting–which I was there also–believe there is a more financially sound alternative to the 500 million dollars and climbing price tag on the rail Oakland Airport Connector project. A capital project that is promising to be much more, if MTC’s past track record holds true. Well, there were more against the approval of the Airporter plus the 3 commissioners that voted “nay”. Anyway the joint commissioners voted to proceed full speed ahead despite the red flags raised. Time to bust up that social club for the elite and bring in some real representatives ‘representative’ of all Bay Area residents’ transit needs.

]]> By: J. Austin http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/22/advocates-mourn-death-of-transit-in-oakland-as-part-of-national-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-18681 J. Austin Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:14:23 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=10841#comment-18681 I work for a transit agency. We're just about to the point of holding bake sales to fund operations. But if it's capital-related, it doesn't matter how stupid the project is, there's millions of dollars to fund it from the feds. Our Board's approval rating is a function of how much benefit we can get the local taxpayer for his dollar. That benefit doesn't even have to be in the form of transportation. It can be construction or IT job creation. Either way, what's the best course of action for our Board? Bias our agency's priorities as much as possible towards capital. That way, for our buck, we maximize the spending of other people's money, namely, Uncle Sam's. That's why every Nowheresville, USA is getting a light rail system. If we don't get it, someone else will. Most people assume the transit agency is in the business of transportation. Wrong. The transit agency is an apparatus for distributing federal money. I work for a transit agency. We’re just about to the point of holding bake sales to fund operations. But if it’s capital-related, it doesn’t matter how stupid the project is, there’s millions of dollars to fund it from the feds. Our Board’s approval rating is a function of how much benefit we can get the local taxpayer for his dollar. That benefit doesn’t even have to be in the form of transportation. It can be construction or IT job creation. Either way, what’s the best course of action for our Board? Bias our agency’s priorities as much as possible towards capital. That way, for our buck, we maximize the spending of other people’s money, namely, Uncle Sam’s. That’s why every Nowheresville, USA is getting a light rail system. If we don’t get it, someone else will. Most people assume the transit agency is in the business of transportation. Wrong. The transit agency is an apparatus for distributing federal money.

]]> By: Richard Mlynarik http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/22/advocates-mourn-death-of-transit-in-oakland-as-part-of-national-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-17791 Richard Mlynarik Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:16:45 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=10841#comment-17791 I don't think there can be any doubt that MTC is a purely criminal organization designed solely to maximize public-private wealth transfer. Can anybody name any *single* instance in which its executive directory, Steve "$5 billion Bay Bridge cost overrun" Heminger or its board have every once advocated for or voted for the public's interest contra the constuction/consultancy mafias'? BART to Millbrae, BART to San Jose, BART to Oakland airport, Caldecott Tunnel, new Bay Bridge span, TransLink, FasTrack, BART to Warm Springs ... the list is endless, and the same cast of less than ethical operatives are behind it every time. I don’t think there can be any doubt that MTC is a purely criminal organization designed solely to maximize public-private wealth transfer.

Can anybody name any *single* instance in which its executive directory, Steve “$5 billion Bay Bridge cost overrun” Heminger or its board have every once advocated for or voted for the public’s interest contra the constuction/consultancy mafias’?

BART to Millbrae, BART to San Jose, BART to Oakland airport, Caldecott Tunnel, new Bay Bridge span, TransLink, FasTrack, BART to Warm Springs … the list is endless, and the same cast of less than ethical operatives are behind it every time.

]]> By: Guillermo Mayer http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/22/advocates-mourn-death-of-transit-in-oakland-as-part-of-national-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-17751 Guillermo Mayer Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:37:16 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=10841#comment-17751 You need both operating and capital funding to keep transit service running. Presently, federal funding is almost entirely dedicated to capital projects, with a heavy emphasis on rehabilitation and expansion. These funding sources are statutorily protected from encroachment. Take for example 5309 New Starts, 5309 Bus & Bus Facilities, Surface Transportation Program -- and most of CMAQ and 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants. Every transportation bond in California is restricted to capital as well. Operations funding, on the other hand, doesn't enjoy such protection. We need dedicated federal funding for transit operations, and a firewall around it so it can't be raided. When it is raided (as it is often the case), the first to feel the hit are the millions of low-income people who rely solely on transit service for their basic mobility. HR 2746, while not perfect, is a valuable first step in restoring federal support for transit operations. You need both operating and capital funding to keep transit service running. Presently, federal funding is almost entirely dedicated to capital projects, with a heavy emphasis on rehabilitation and expansion. These funding sources are statutorily protected from encroachment. Take for example 5309 New Starts, 5309 Bus & Bus Facilities, Surface Transportation Program — and most of CMAQ and 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants. Every transportation bond in California is restricted to capital as well. Operations funding, on the other hand, doesn’t enjoy such protection. We need dedicated federal funding for transit operations, and a firewall around it so it can’t be raided. When it is raided (as it is often the case), the first to feel the hit are the millions of low-income people who rely solely on transit service for their basic mobility. HR 2746, while not perfect, is a valuable first step in restoring federal support for transit operations.

]]> By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/22/advocates-mourn-death-of-transit-in-oakland-as-part-of-national-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-17731 marcos Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:19:20 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=10841#comment-17731 @Charles Siegel: 1. Today's transit capital spending is tomorrow's transit operations spending. 2. Transit will never pay for itself through the farebox. 3. Increased transit use achieves stated federal goals of reducing reliance on imported petroleum as well as reducing the amounts of harmful pollutants released into the atmosphere. Federal operations funding consolidates on precarious resources already allocated before taking on more load that the system cannot afford to operate. It is critical that the federal government take a more proactive role, similar to that in which California had led the way for years, in subsidizing all aspects of transit. Even under the most ambitious of the proposed amendments, capital would still get, what, 2/3 of federal funding? -marc @Charles Siegel:

1. Today’s transit capital spending is tomorrow’s transit operations spending.

2. Transit will never pay for itself through the farebox.

3. Increased transit use achieves stated federal goals of reducing reliance on imported petroleum as well as reducing the amounts of harmful pollutants released into the atmosphere.

Federal operations funding consolidates on precarious resources already allocated before taking on more load that the system cannot afford to operate.

It is critical that the federal government take a more proactive role, similar to that in which California had led the way for years, in subsidizing all aspects of transit.

Even under the most ambitious of the proposed amendments, capital would still get, what, 2/3 of federal funding?

-marc

]]> By: Charles Siegel http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/22/advocates-mourn-death-of-transit-in-oakland-as-part-of-national-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-17721 Charles Siegel Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:57:28 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=10841#comment-17721 This demonstration is intended to support H.R. 2746, which would allow transit agencies in large cities like New York to spend up to 30 percent of their federal funding on operations. My first reaction is that this would mean much less capital funding available for better transit infrastructure. Because fare hikes are politically unpopular, city governments will avoid them by killing capital projects and diverting the money to operations. Cities would give riders bargain fares (which would not even keep up with inflation) rather than funding capital projects to improve their transit systems. The sole purpose of this bill is to divert money away from capital spending to operations. Given the great need to improve transit infrastructure, I think we need to provide separate funding for operations in addition to existing capital funding, rather than reducing available capital funding to support operations. This demonstration is intended to support H.R. 2746, which would allow transit agencies in large cities like New York to spend up to 30 percent of their federal funding on operations.

My first reaction is that this would mean much less capital funding available for better transit infrastructure. Because fare hikes are politically unpopular, city governments will avoid them by killing capital projects and diverting the money to operations. Cities would give riders bargain fares (which would not even keep up with inflation) rather than funding capital projects to improve their transit systems.

The sole purpose of this bill is to divert money away from capital spending to operations.

Given the great need to improve transit infrastructure, I think we need to provide separate funding for operations in addition to existing capital funding, rather than reducing available capital funding to support operations.

]]> By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/22/advocates-mourn-death-of-transit-in-oakland-as-part-of-national-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-17411 marcos Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:15:18 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=10841#comment-17411 Looks like SOMEONE's organizing around transit issues instead of just advocating. -marc Looks like SOMEONE’s organizing around transit issues instead of just advocating.

-marc

]]>