Comments on: Shifting Funds, Shifty Priorities

By: Regional HOT lane network going back to the drawing board « Transbay Blog

Regional HOT lane network going back to the drawing board « Transbay Blog — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:07:17 +0000

[...] network. Already, before lanes are even in place, MTC has planned to use theoretical HOT revenue to close anticipated funding shortfalls, and the tolls will no doubt be regarded as a possible funding source for BART to Livermore and [...]

By: Richard Mlynarik

Richard Mlynarik — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:48:16 +0000

My goodness. $1 billion in magic last-minute transit-oriented real estate profits in Santa Clara County. Things are really booming along those VTA Light Rail Lines, and VTA must have been secretly assembling a huge real estate portfolio hush-hush so none of those less-savvy, less-nimble, more-regulated private developers else could get a jump on this billlion dollar windfall.

This number of course comes from the same place as MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger’s $1 billion cost for a new Bay Bridge East Span. (Actual number of course is $6 billion and climbing.)

They’re not even trying to pretend not to lie these days.

The only question is why the entire MTC, electeds and executive staff, are not serving lengthy jail terms for systematic, repeated, deliberate and flagrant financial fraud.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:49:17 +0000

MTC has always been heavily biased towards BART extensions. One could easily argue that MTC’s central role since its creation in 1970, just as BART was being built, has been to fund the expansion of the flawed, expensive BART system at the expense of all other transit.

By: dto510

dto510 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:05:14 +0000

david – hear hear! It is unconscionable that the MTC, which is terribly unrepresentative, continue to shift funds away from population centers and to distant suburbs without any opportunity for meaningful opposition (like, am I supposed to go campaign against a Napa Councilmember in order to ensure my tax dollars aren’t thrown away?). We need state legislation to reform the MTC, and we need it now.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:35:55 +0000

Transit service is not redundant simply because it runs along the same route, as you correctly note. BART and the 14-Mission are not used the same way or by the same people, and removing one doesn’t shift those rides to the other. They are, as you rightly describe, complementary, they do different things along the same route and in so doing they increase overall demand for transit along that route, which increases ridership on both lines over time.

The MTC’s focus on pruning ‘redundant’ service is barely veiled prejudice against the transit-dependent urban core (which are relative cash cows for transit agencies) and in favor of non-cost-effective service to the exurbs.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the MTC would love to see transit disappear in the rear-view mirror, like Grover Norquist starving the beast.

By: Streetsblog » Regional Transportation Funding Problems Keep Getting Bigger

Streetsblog » Regional Transportation Funding Problems Keep Getting Bigger — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:42:34 +0000

[...] For a more detailed analysis of regional funding challenges, see today’s excellent report on Transbay Blog. [...]

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:01:23 +0000

MTC operates as if BART is more important than all other transit. What we need is legislation mandating subsidy equality based on ridership.

By: Jeffrey W. Baker

Jeffrey W. Baker — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:38:21 +0000

Really enjoying your latest entries!