Not surprisingly, Caltrain riders are upset, including many of Streetsblog's readers. Soren Peterson, a Caltrain commuter who lives in San Francisco, said the cuts would force him to drive a lot more.

"I live in Potrero Hill and commute to Palo Alto for work," explained Peterson. "Although I try to be out by the last limited train of the evening, this is not always possible and as a result I occasionally depend on one of the evening trains."

Those evening trains could soon be gone, according to Caltrain CEO Mike Scanlon. At the Caltrain Board of Directors meeting last Thursday, Scanlon announced that the agency is broke, and may need to wipe out fifty percent of its service. That's in part because the state has pulled $30 million in funding from the agency in the past three years, but it's also because Caltrain relies on unstable local funding sources.

The three local transit agencies that contribute money to Caltrain -- Muni, VTA, and SamTrans -- are all financially strapped themselves this year, and Scanlon, who also manages SamTrans, said he'll be asking his other agency to reduce its contribution to Caltrain by 70 percent. If that happens, the SFMTA and the VTA would likely follow suit, leaving Caltrain with a $30 million deficit -- nearly a third of its $97 million budget.

"We've just begun working on this budget and we wanted to come out early because we are partners, and let our partners know that SamTrans was seriously considering reducing their contribution," said SamTrans spokesperson Christine Dunn.

Caltrain would preserve its commuter-hour service, but riders would be left in the lurch if they ever needed to return home early or late. "I already have to come in a bit earlier then I'd like because of the schedule (either I'm 30-40 minutes early or I'm 30-40 minutes late,) so any tweaking could mean an even longer day," said Caltrain commuter (and prolific Streetsblog commenter) Mike Sonn.

"We won't be buying a car, so if the cuts are bad enough I'll probably have to explore SamTrans options or find someone to car pool with," he added.

Sonn and Peterson both said they're looking for ways to productively voice their concerns about the cuts. One way to do that is by contacting local elected officials, which are listed on the BayRail Alliance's website.

Caltrain has a complex governance structure that doesn't answer to any elected official directly, but BayRail Alliance President Andy Chow said it's time to look at changing that.

"For now, we are trying to find out the situation so that we can determine the necessary action," he said. "So far Caltrain hasn't declared a fiscal emergency or scheduled public meetings to reduce service. I believe that some type of legislative change in Sacramento is necessary, and that we will need to show our support for it."

One of the best courses of action may be to simply keep riding Caltrain, said Chow. "The more riders use the service, the less likely the elected officials would want to eliminate it."

BayRail Alliance has also set up a new blog called Green Caltrain to follow the most recent developments. One of its most recent post looks at the specter of turning Caltrain into a commuter-only rail system, as well as exploring Caltrain's funding situation. Another dissects "anti-Caltrain arguments."

The blog's authors hope it will provide resources for constructively responding to the challenges facing Caltrain.

For their part, Caltrain supporters are looking for direction on how to try to stop the cuts.

"I'm definitely thinking about contacting elected officials (to tell them how important Caltrain is for my mobility and thus, how important it is to me that there be some sort of political support for a dedicated funding source)," said Peterson. "But I'm unclear of what would be the best use of my time."

Caltrain must balance its budget by June 1 of next year, but cuts could come as soon as this fall. One clear way to make your voice heard is to attend the next Caltrain Board of Directors meeting, on May 6 at the SamTrans Administrative Offices, 1250 San Carlos Ave., in San Carlos. The meeting is at 10 a.m.

MTA CEO Nat Ford. Photo: foggydave

MTA Board of Directors Chairman Tom Nolan applauded Ford in a statement: "Ford’s election to this important leadership post in the transit industry strengthens San Francisco’s voice in crucial national discussions about the future of public transportation in this country, particularly on the challenge of how we will pay for it.... His involvement at the highest levels of APTA will continue to help the SFMTA both learn from and inform the best practices of our industry.”

In other MTA news, the agency has recently posted its job announcement for the Director of Sustainable Streets position, which, as we've reported, could be a very positive change within the agency to prioritize the city's Transit First policy. The Director of Sustainable Streets would, among other duties:

• Coordinate the development of the Agency’s strategic plan, long-range goals, objectives and policies
• Develop policy and direct planning, designing, and environmental clearance of capital programs and services in the SFMTA’s multi-modal transportation network
• Oversee street operations which include installation and maintenance of traffic signs, signals, meters and markings
• Manage off-street parking facilities (include approximately 15,000 spaces in City-owned garages and lots)

Four of these six routes will be discontinued or have reduced service. Flickr photo: 4nitsirk

The changes will save a total of $7.3 million, about half of which will be realized during fiscal year 2010, which started in July.

Several other local routes, including the 280, 14, and 141 will have reduced weekday frequencies. The 390 and the 391, which are SamTrans' highest-ridership routes, will maintain their current weekday schedules, but will drop from 30-minute to 40-minute headways on the weekend.

In spite of the breadth of the cuts, most members of the public at the hearing supported the plan, since it doesn't cut any coast-side routes, and generally makes cuts where there are the fewest riders. The express routes on the chopping block had a combined daily average ridership of 1,079 in July, far fewer than routes like the 390, which averaged 6,364 daily riders alone during the same period. Nearly half of the people in attendance stood up when asked if they were attending in support of the coast-side routes, which, unlike the express routes, are not duplicated by Caltrain or BART. Many speakers expressed gratitude to the board for sparing route 17, a coast-side line that many said they are dependent on to get to employment.

"We've listened to the neediest, rather than the loudest," said board member Jim Hartnett, who added it was "one of the saddest days" in his years on the SamTrans board because of the depth of the cuts. Hartnett said the cuts were decided on "principle, not politics," and thus it was also "one of his proudest days" on the board. Hartnett also added that the board needs to seek new sources of revenue to fix the agency's structural deficit and not rely on state transit aid, which has been slashed.

Board member Adrienne Tissier, who is also a San Mateo Country supervisor, said that advocates need to turn their attention to the state level to demand that state aid be reinstated so similar cuts are averted in the future. "Money that should have been in the transit pot has been taken away" at the state level, Tissier said.

The call for new revenue sources was picked up by Michael Scanlon, the General Manager and CEO of SamTrans. "You can raise fares until hell freezes over, but it's not going to do very much" to ultimately cover the budget gap, Scanlon said. "We've got to find a way to get a new revenue source."

Pressure to do so will be mounting quickly, as SamTrans still needs to cover the bulk of its $28.4 million deficit for fiscal year 2010. Service cuts and fare increases will "only address a portion of our deficit," said SamTrans Deputy CEO Chuck Harvey. "We'll be back if state aid or revenue doesn't improve."

The fare increases include a jump from $1.75 to $2 for a one-way bus ride, and from $56 to $64 for an adult monthly pass, as well as increases across the board for discount passes. In total, the fare increases will only generate $400,000 for fiscal year 2010, a drop in the bucket compared to the total deficit.

Few of the service reductions will be painless, and some will especially challenging. One change that may affect a transit-dependent population without an alternative is route 280, which services East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, and will be reduced from 30-minute to 60-minute headways on Monday through Saturday.

Ultimately, the changes will result in a 7.5 percent service reduction system-wide. Scanlon cited a Transportation for America study that said nearly 90 percent of all transit agencies are cutting service as a result of the recession, including nearly every Bay Area agency. SamTrans was able to make cuts that most riders seemed to consider the most logical given the circumstances, but long-term, Scanlon said, "We need to be advocates at every level" for funding, or transit may wither away just as it's poised for a revival.

SamTrans - the buses and paratransit vehicles that run the length of El Camino Real between Palo Alto and Daly City, traverse the Santa Cruz mountains, and service San Francisco's financial district - is preparing to raise fares and reduce service on some bus lines and eliminate other lines in order to close a $28.4 million budget gap.

SamTrans serves more than 15 million riders annually through its 339 regular buses and its Redi-Wheels and RediCoast (Paratransit) vehicles. Its fixed-route bus system currently consists of 54 routes.

The financial crisis forced SamTrans Deputy CEO Chuck Harvey to present several options to close the gap at a San Mateo County Transit District Board of Directors meeting August 12 and arrive at a preliminary operating budget of $136.5 million for the 2010 fiscal year.

Harvey presented options for achieving 7.5 percent, 10 percent, and 15 percent savings. "To get to 15 percent savings, it's wholesale amputation," he said.

To achieve 15 percent savings Harvey proposed: reducing service on up to 22 lines and eliminating 17 lines; increasing adult, youth, and discounted fares by 25 cents or more; and eliminating the 15 percent discount on the SamTrans pass with the purchase of a Muni sticker.

"It is indeed a cruel twist of fate that brings us here today," said Board of Directors Chairwoman Zoe Kersteen-Tucker. "More than ever, we need to reduce our dependence on cars, yet we are facing a significant crushing deficit, and we cannot look to the state to help us out at least for the next four years."

Citizens argued for the retention of affordable fares and the routes they depend on. Laura Loringer, a disabled bus rider, testified on behalf of herself and other disabled riders, urging SamTrans not to raise fares for the disabled. "Some of us are on fixed incomes," she said.

"What is Schwarzenegger doing to us?" asked William Farrell, another disabled rider. "We need these buses. For the love of God, make the right choices."

The current cost of a discounted monthly pass is $22. The proposed cost is $32.

The transit agency's budget problem has also been compounded by the loss of $39.2 million from the State Transit Assistance fund, which was gutted by Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

Other members of the public testified on behalf of public school students and community college students who depend on the buses to get their schools or out of concern for the environment.

"The express bus service is one of the most effective methods for improving air quality," testified Amir Fanai, a San Mateo County resident. For four years, Fanai has been taking the NX express bus from Redwood Shores to his job with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in San Francisco, but the NX is now on the chopping block. "By eliminating the NX, many fellow passengers would have to drive," he said.

Fanai has also written to President Barack Obama asking that stimulus money be released for the operational costs of transit agencies.

According to Randy Rentschler, spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area has received a total of about $500 million in transportation stimulus dollars, $340 million of which has gone to transit. According to SamTrans Public Information Officer Christine Dunn, SamTrans received $7.8 million. Three million of that has been set aside for new buses, $4 million for maintenance, and $788,000 for paratransit buses - and none of those monies have been directly put into operations.

Michael Dolder, interim city manager for Half Moon Bay, questioned whether or not the agency had complied with the California Environmental Quality Act and the MTC Regional Transportation Plan 2035. Dolder was particularly concerned about proposals to eliminate the 17 line which runs between Montara State Beach and Santa Cruz, and is one of only two lines to serve the coast side of San Mateo County south of Pacifica.

"After a thorough review," he wrote in a letter to the Board of Directors, "staff has concluded that the document does not provide sufficient factual and scientific data to support the decision to adopt a negative declaration for this project."

However, BART Board Director and Livably City Executive Director Tom Radulovich said CEQA "is a strange document" and "not a very good planning tool if you're trying to plan for sustainability."

CEQA, he noted, is weak in terms of the evaluation of carbon dioxide emissions, and performance for transit riders, and it permits exemptions for transit agencies that declare fiscal emergencies such as the San Mateo County Transit District and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni).

The public can submit comments to the SamTrans Board of Directors until September 2 at changes@samtrans.com.

After reports of fare inspectors and drivers telling Muni passengers they can't take photos on Muni's buses and trains, the MTA is being forced to craft a photo policy and make it public. The San Francisco Appeal and WHAT IM SEEING both have stories today about Muni's elusive policy, which MTA spokesperson Judson True told the Appeal will be posted online soon, and "will say that non-commercial video and photography will be OK as long as it doesn't disturb transit."

If that's the case, it will put Muni in the middle or front of the pack nationally, depending on the specifics. New York City's MTA may be the leader in that regard, since its policy states that photography is always okay, and ancillary equipment such as tripods can be used by members of the press. The CTA in Chicago has a similar policy, though it's less clear whether members of the press require special credentials.

Boston's MBTA may be the most draconian. Citing terrorism concerns, its policy states that while non-commercial photography is okay, transit police will ask all photographers for identification, and will escort photographers off the premises if they refuse to provide it. According to a post from a local blogger, Boston transit police have gone beyond the policy's bounds in some instances.

Read about other local agencies' policies after the break.

Locally, BART is happy to allow amateur photographers to snap away, but requires anyone engaged in "commercial, educational or non-profit activity" to obtain a $250 permit, in addition to paying a "location fee." It's not clear whether that applies to members of the press, but passengers who wish to document their ride don't need a permit.

Other local agencies, including AC Transit, Caltrain, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and SamTrans, do not have photo policies posted online. Most agencies don't publicly post photo policies, it seems, until they start having well-publicized incidents like the one shown in the above video.

Let's hope Muni leans towards the more liberal end of the photo policy spectrum, and clearly states that all photography is okay without any license, as long as it's not disruptive and isn't going to show up in any commercials or TV shows.

Photo by Bryan Goebel.

"I’m not campaigning for anything. This is not a stepping stone to anything. I’m doing this because I was asked to do it, that’s all.  I didn’t campaign for it," said Nolan, in a recent hour-long interview with Streetsblog at the Polk Street office of Project Open Hand, where he is the executive director.

Nolan doesn't fudge at all around the issue of the MTA Board not being independent. All of its members are appointed by the Mayor, and they seem very reluctant to break from his wishes. "We’re just kidding ourselves if we think it's a totally independent body, it just isn’t.  The only way that would be the case really would be if we were all elected by the people." 

In our interview, Nolan tackles questions about the accountability of the MTA Board, his role as chair, the budget process, the Bike Plan and parking. Nolan seems to get parking issues, and he's a fan of Donald Shoup's book, "The High Cost of Free Parking." So why isn't he stronger on the issues?

"I would say watch over the next two or three months about what the real choices are going to be and I expect increasingly I’ll play a more active role." 

The interview was recorded on June 17th, 2009. Read highlights below the break.

Highlights:

• On his role as MTA Board chair: "I’m very interested in the notion of governance.  The organization I now work for, Project Open Hand, did a thing that most organizations never do, they took time out years ago to try to figure out what a board should do.  And just because, like in our case here, you're a very good peeler of vegetables or something, doesn’t mean you're going to be a great member of the board.  It's a distinct important function and boards almost never do that.  When you get appointed to this you get sworn in and you just start.  And since I’ve been on so many boards, non-profit boards as well as the transit boards, two years on the (MTC) commission, I have a good sense of that.  And so I think I’m trying to help my colleagues understand it's an important role, but it's limited.  And I think that the fact that I run pretty good meetings.  I think I give people enough chance to do what they want, but I don’t tend to just carry over things, let’s say."
• On Supervisor Avalos' proposed charter amendment to have half of the MTA Board appointed by supervisors, half by the Mayor and one elected: "I can’t imagine who would run for that one seat quite frankly.  Running a city wide election in San Francisco would be hugely expensive.  Maybe somebody could, I don’t know, it certainly wouldn’t be me, I'll tell you that.  And the way I see Supervisor Avalos’ thing, it really gives the board pretty much all the power, because even the Mayor’s appointees have to be approved by the full board.  So the only one that’s truly independent presumably is the elected one.  If people want a truly independent body, election is the way to do it, but it has to come with a revenue stream that’s guaranteed somehow, like in San Mateo County, SamTrans has two half cent sales tax measures". 
  
• On fixing Muni: "I think the big thing, we need a whole lot more money and the contribution I’m proudest of at Muni, being on the MTA board, is I have forced the agency to eventually say what would it take to achieve 85 percent on-time.  And the answer was $100 million to $150 million more a year.  And Prop A, as good as that was, gave us $26 million more a year, which was lost in work orders.  But even if we got all $26 million its nowhere near what we needed.  What I learned as a San Mateo County supervisor from observing things that worked and things that didn’t is a little formula.  And that is people have to appreciate and understand the value of the problem you’re trying to solve, number two you have to present a solution that makes sense to rational people, three you have to be candid about the cost both literally and figuratively.  And four you have to divide that cost as equitably as possible, both literally and figuratively and five you have to either develop, maintain or enhance confidence in the administering institution."
• How is San Francisco doing as a Transit First city? "Oh C+, B- maybe.  I wish we could have in the budget done more in terms of the parking, that balance between drivers and buses and everything.  We’ve got a long way to go there.  I’m very excited about the bike plan, by the way.  I just see anecdotally way more bicycles on the streets than before, it's growing.  And I think the number one problem that the bike coalition people tell us is that some people are not riding because they're afraid, they're scared out there, the dooring and all that stuff.  But if we can almost double the number of bike lanes and all these amenities for bicycles, I think that’ll help move us towards the transit first city.  And I know the argument is make Muni so dependable and reliable and cost effective that people want to ride it.  Well 700,000 people a day do already, so it's a good start, considering the population is about 765,000."
• On parking: "I think we’ll almost assuredly see weeknight parking extended to ten o’clock. If we aren’t able to do that, there are very few things that are really readily available to us without doing serious damage to the system.  And we had three options of service cuts and we only went to option two, option three is much more drastic.  And I say charging for parking during week day nights, as far as I’m concerned on Sunday as well, is a small price to pay for the overall good of the entire city.  So I’m very open to that, I appreciate the study and I know it's already ongoing."
  

Photo: rhondawinter

The lead plaintiff in the case, the California Transit Association (CTA), which consists of transit operators throughout the state, was understandably thrilled with the decision.

“The ruling clearly states that the rip-offs are illegal,” said CTA Executive Director Joshua Shaw. “It says they’ve been illegal since before 2007, and it says that the definition of mass transportation that lawmakers have adopted since then to mask these diversions is illegal.”

The CTA said the decision is a 100 percent vindication of their case and if it stands, transit operators can expect to receive all of the funding from the PTA. A CTA spokesperson said a lower court ruling in 2008 had only been a partial victory that required the state to pay back about 35 percent of the funding it had taken from the PTA.

According to California Department of Finance Deputy Director H.D. Palmer, the governor plans to appeal to the State Supreme Court. "We continue to believe that the transfers that have been done in the past and will be done in the future are legal under the way the rules of the PTA are drafted," he said. When asked if he thought the Supreme Court would hear the case he replied, "absolutely."

What this means for local operators is that they will see no funding from the state in the next fiscal year and perhaps none until 2011, depending on the outcome of the case at the Supreme Court level.

MTA spokesperson Judson True applauded the ruling: "It reinforces what we've been saying for a long time -- the state should be funding transit aside from just bond measures." True said the MTA would have received $152 million over the past three years from the state if it weren't for the diversions. "We have tremendous unmet capital needs and operating challenges."

BART spokesperson Linton Johnson said his agency would have received $30 million last year without the diversions, though the MTC would have taken some off the top to reapportion to other transit operators in the region. "I don't expect that we'll see a dime anytime soon as a result of the ruling, and thus our transit funding will be held up yet again as the courts sort it all out."

AC Transit, which last year would have received $26 million before diversions, received $3 million. "In absolute money terms, the CTA ruling means nothing immediately but we view it as a  positive step," said spokesperson Clarence Johnson, who added that the state has diverted more than $100 million since 2000.

Christine Dunn, who speaks for SamTrans and Caltrain, was equally pessimistic that the ruling would net operating money any time soon. "The good news is that the decision affirms the public’s desire to fund transit. However, it would be unwise in these economic times to count on receiving additional funds from the state.  We will proceed with the budgets that have been approved by our board, but we would welcome the opportunity to adjust the budget to reflect additional revenue."

There are multiple villains in this story, but the blackest hat is reserved for Schwarzenegger.  Remember when he was out in front supporting high speed rail last November?  This budget will cause major fare hikes and service reductions around the state, as Joshua Shaw, executive director of the California Transit Association, notes in a press release:

We will see fare increases. We will see service cuts. We will see layoffs.  I can say that with certainty simply because we’ve already seen those things happening even before the state apparently decided to abandon its responsibility to fund public transportation.

Of course, the governor couldn't slash transit funds without the support of the Legislature.   While the League of California Environmental Voters, Environmental Defense and the National Resources Defense Council placed the blame at the feet of a "radical minority" of Republicans who used the state's super-majority requirement for any budget to effectively stall democratic efforts, other transit groups blamed the Democratic majority for not holding firm on protecting the environment. 

"Make no mistake, Californians will breathe dirtier air, spend more time in traffic, and less time with their families as a result of a budget deal that gives zero to public transportation," said Nick Caston, the state transportation advocate for Transform.

A spokeswoman for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said the office is not commenting on the latest budget and cannot confirm any details.

In the Bay Area, every transit agency is facing cutbacks and struggling with huge deficits that will deepen without the STA fund. Muni is facing a $100 million gap over the next 16 months. AC Transit announced this week it's considering its first fare hike in four years as it tries to close a $42 million deficit.  Other agencies face similar realities. BART: $90 million. VTA: $40 million. And on.

Bryan Goebel contributed to this story.

Flickr photo: Anarchytecture