Recent reports on AC Transit are mistaken

ACT Transit produced a lot of news recently, because several important decisions were made. The Board voted for a non-binding resolution to “buy American,” service cuts were postponed while the agency sought to transfer Congestion Management and Air Quality funds from capital improvements to operations, and long-time General Manager Rick Fernandez resigned. If you learned about these decisions from the two local media outlets that cover AC Transit the most, the East Bay Express and Berkeley Daily Planet weekly newspapers, you would have read some very inaccurate statements about the agency.

The “Buy American” resolution passed by the Board (PDF) was proposed by Director Elsa Ortiz (East Oakland – Alameda) and strongly supported by new Director Joel Young (at-large). In her statement proposing the resolution, Director Ortiz called complaints about Van Hool buses “exaggerated” and made it clear that her resolution is an attempt to support local jobs rather than to stop buying European buses (“American-made” buses are actually made abroad anyway). The resolution is also non-binding. That did not stop Berkeley Daily Planet reporter Jesse Douglas Allen-Taylor from declaring that the resolution, which is not a policy, “would be the death knell for AC Transit’s recent practice of buying buses exclusively from Belgian bus manufacturer Van Hool.” East Bay Express reporter Robert Gammon says that “the board voted to effectively end the agency’s controversial relationship with Belgian bus maker, Van Hool.” Those statements are simply wrong: no contracts were changed, though obviously staff is being directed to look at alternative sources for buses. Since AC Transit has no immediate plans to buy new buses, the effect of the nonbinding resolution is unclear. And for the record, AC Transit does not buy buses “exclusively” from Van Hool, but continues to purchase other manufacturer’s buses for what is a pretty diverse fleet (ACT does not source from Hayward bus manufacturer Gillig).

Rick Fernandez proposed swapping capital funds for operating funds to stave off 15% service cuts that had been proposed and discussed in a months-long public outreach process that the agency could undertake because it had ample cash reserves (by contrast, BART cut off-peak service 20% with no outreach). The Board rejected Fernandez’s recommendation to seek a funding swap with BART for Regional Measure 2 funds, and instead only asked that CMAQ funds, already dedicated to the organization, be reprogrammed from capital to operating. Because a big source of BRT funding, the state’s STIP contribution, is already in doubt, and there is no date certain for starting construction, it made sense to take some funds away from BRT because the agency will have to rethink the funding plan anyway. This was misinterpreted by people who don’t seem to like the BRT plan, with Mr. Allen-Taylor writing that it means “at least a one-year delay in construction of AC Transit’s long-planned Bus Rapid Transit line, with a possible scaling down of the proposal or even abandonment of BRT altogether.” That is claim is wishful thinking on behalf of the anti-transit Berkeley Daily Planet.

One statement in particular, from the East Bay Express’s Mr. Gammon (who, we cannot forget, penned a wildly inaccurate article about Van Hool and AC Transit last year), stands out for its falsehood. He writes:

AC Transit has repeatedly slashed service and raised fares in recent years, while requiring loans from other agencies to stay solvent and growing increasingly dependent on taxpayer funds to keep its buses running.

Not a single phrase in that statement is true. AC Transit hasn’t substantially cut service since the last recession, in 2003, which is not a recent year. Fares went up this year for the first time since 2005, but service has not yet been cut. AC Transit has not taken out a loan from other agencies, and has no plans to do so (he must be confusing AC Transit with BART), and is not “increasingly dependent on taxpayer funds.” AC Transit did successfully seek a parcel tax hike to make up for some of the state budget cuts it and other agencies suffered, but again unlike BART, AC Transit has not received any net increase in taxpayer support. (BART has also raised fares repeatedly. Come to think of it, if you replace AC Transit with BART in the statement, it becomes true.)

Finally, the departure of Rick Fernandez was used by these media outlets, who generally don’t like AC Transit, as validation of their positions. Mr. Allen-Taylor even interviewed leading BRT and Van Hool critic Joyce Roy about it. However, had he bothered to ask any of the pro-BRT activists that have been going to public meetings and organizing to support the agency, he would have found that they are also displeased by Mr. Fernandez’s job performance. Mr. Gammon says that Mr. Fernandez “resigned abruptly,” yet two paragraphs below writes that he “came to the Board several months ago, seeking a lucrative severance package.” Rick Fernandez’s departure could just as easily be interpreted as a statement of support for BRT, since Mr. Fernandez sought to reprogram much more money away from it than the Board approved.

It is disappointing that the East Bay Express and the Berkeley Daily Planet, leading reporters of the East Bay’s largest transit agency, are so blinded by their own biases about bus service that they report remote possibilities or questionable interpretations as settled fact. AC Transit is the lifeline of the East Bay, and though it certainly needs critical oversight, the resistance to its mission that local weeklies sometimes display is inappropriate for community-based papers. BART, on the other hand, regularly screws Oakland over, but the weeklies only pay attention when something rises to the level of a riot or a billion-dollar boondoggle. Unfortunately, it’s only going to get worse: Mr. Allen-Taylor will not longer report on AC Transit, Oakland government or anything else – the Planet has laid off its reporting staff. Commentaries will continue, of course. Though the Planet’s firm editorial stances certainly colored their reporting, the loss of coverage of local issues will just make it harder for people to understand what’s going on at AC Transit or other public agencies.

Transit advocates are making progress

This blog is about decisions made today that shape the future. I often focus on transit and bike/ped issues because transportation is the fabric of Oakland, and can be the foundation of a healthier and more successful city. Last week, the Oakland City Council took on two vital and controversial transportation issues, parking pricing and the Airport Connector, and transit advocates, in which I include myself, basically lost the votes. But we transit advocates should be very proud of our recent work, because we made a significant difference in the long struggle to create more livable communities, and are poised to build on our success.

Sanjiv Handa and Clinton Killian recently said that bloggers came up with the idea of extending parking meter hours and raising prices. That’s not true, although I’ve blogged about parking for a long time; the city’s parking staff recommended those steps, as well as many more that were not approved by the Council during the many, many public hearings this Spring on parking and the budget. However, bloggers were among those urging the Council to stick to its parking regulations and ignore unfounded claims that parking meters are somehow bad for parking and shopping. But there were actually quite a few people brave enough to come speak at the Council in favor of rational parking regulation, and Councilmembers received many more emails against the meter-hours rollback than some suggested in public statements. We environmental advocates made good and rational arguments, and I am confident they will be borne out by the forthcoming parking study, just as they were by the SFMTA’s recent study. Bike/ped advocates found common cause with good-government and city-service advocates, and by pushing back against the tide of parking outrage, provided an alternative vision of a better-funded and more livable city. Like the Airport Connector, advocates may have lost a battle last Tuesday, but made significant strides and even real progress.

Transit advocates have never before come so close to stopping a wasteful BART boondoggle. BART’s backers, from the asphalt lobby (the Alliance for Jobs and state construction workers’ unions) to the regional heavy-hitters (the Bay Area Council of CEOs, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, BART’s general manager and Board President) were forced to do the utmost to defend their pet disaster, and even came in person to persuade the City Council at midnight. I’m sure they found it quite demeaning. Though in the end the Council succumbed to a combination of political pressure and unfamiliarity with transportation planning, a large and diverse coalition forced cloistered regional policymakers to defend their project in front of accountable local representatives. The hearing brought vitally important public investments out of the proverbial back rooms of mid-morning meetings featuring unelected or unrepresentative officials. BART and its backers had to lie to and bully the Council to get their way, and the veneer of respectability covering BART and the MTC was stripped for all to see. As news coverage and comments made clear, the OAC’s opponents won the war of public opinion. Reforming the Bay Area’s undemocratic, regressive, and sprawl-supporting regional planning is a long struggle, but transit advocates exposed its worst manifestation to a big audience.

And though the Council did not stop the OAC, transit advocates won some real victories. The Council’s resolution for BART to adhere to many of its promises made over the years may indeed secure a better project and more jobs for locals, and even if it doesn’t, it will help people understand BART’s failures. More importantly, many of the Councilmembers who voted for the OAC were persuaded that it was not a good use of scarce funding, and were frankly embarrassed to admit that they had no alternative means to improve airport access or spend transit funds. According to one longtime City Hall policy aide, the OAC vote was “a major wake-up call” to the Council about Oakland’s failure to plan and advocate for transportation needs. The hearing also showed the power of a broad transit advocacy coalition uniting social justice, good-government, business, and quality-of-life activists. Council offices were flooded with phone calls and emails opposing the project, and speakers on the OAC outnumbered even those on parking. Transit advocates not only clearly communicated their position on the OAC and Oakland’s transit priorities, but also demonstrated broad-based community support. There’s now serious talk of creating a Transportation Commission, and in other ways transit advocates’ priorities are starting to move forward.

Last week Oakland announced it received a grant from the Air Quality Management District to start a downtown shuttle connecting Uptown to Jack London Square. Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, whose election last year represented a progressive victory over the status quo, was instrumental in securing the grant. The shuttle was explicitly sold to the BAAQMD as a first step toward a fixed-guideway (eg, streetcar or BRT) downtown transit service. Uniting the three downtown BART stations, the bus hubs, the Amtrak and ferry stations, and downtown’s somewhat disconnected districts, is a long-held goal of local transit advocates. With the redevelopment of Jack London Square, and the potential redevelopment of Alameda Point, Oak-to-Ninth, and Auto Row, a downtown transit service not only solves a whole slew of planning problems but can leverage private funds. Thanks to TransForm, who persuaded the AC Transit Board to resist the General Manager’s recommendation to take every last penny of capital funds, AC Transit will only use a portion of Bus Rapid Transit funding to forestall service cuts, and will explore additional means of raising revenue both for existing bus service and for BRT. This creates an opportunity to look at places beyond than the very largest corridor (Telegraph-International) to make significant investments. With an invigorated transit movement and an engaged City Council, there’s a real possibility of planning for the transit improvements our city desperately needs.

The twentieth anniversary of the Loma Prieta earthquake reminds us how great a difference we can make. Thanks to far-sighted San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos and dedicated West Oaklanders, highways were torn down, and in their place, vibrant communities now blossom. Enormous portions of West Oakland were basically uninhabitable before Mandela Parkway replaced the cursed Cypress Structure over the strident objections of CalTrans and regional business interests. Transit and bike-ped advocacy isn’t just about getting places, it’s about creating successful, healthy, and beautiful communities. There’s a rising tide of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit activism in Oakland, and it’s not only new groups like Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, but also shares a vision with long-standing advocates in fields as diverse as social justice, public safety, business, and neighborhood preservation. We can’t expect to win huge battles against free parking or BART waste right away, but the steps we’ve made this year are meaningful and form the foundation for future progress.