I was quoted in the Dec. 8 L.A. Times article "Reyes is Named to MTA Board":

Dana Gabbard, spokesman for Southern California Transit Advocates, said his group liked Reyes' qualifications but had hoped the mayor would appoint a community member rather than another politician. "He's playing politics with MTA board appointments," Gabbard said. "It seems he uses this to build constituencies and alliances."

As part of the interview for the story I spoke at length about our concern that Mayor Hahn isn't complying with the state law requirement that two of his MTA Board appointees be public members [Public Utility Code section 130051(c)]. You'll note the quote used only obliquely touches on this. Oh, well...

I was depressed to find the public meeting held Dec. 7 as part of the tri-ennial Planning Certification Review & Evaluation of the Southern California Association of Governments by the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration drew only 5 attendees including myself, 3 staffers from local cities sent to hear what was said and a mystery man who never said a word and vanished when the meeting ended. Only five attendees despite SCAG sending out over a thousand fliers to publicize the event! I ended up being the only one to make comments and spoke against maglev and lamented my experience as part of the technical committee that the process of drafting the Regional Transportation Plan goes from sombulent the first year or so to overheated, deadline driven and chaotic the last 8-12 months before adoption by the Regional Council. Since the feds had to stay until the stated end time in case a latecomer showed up to speak (none did) we informally discussed transportation policy and the challenge of having more public participation in these kind of obscure processes.

In contrast I was blown away when member Anthony Loui brought to my attention that SO.CA.TA was included in a list of 26 clubs to join that appeared in the special list issue of the L.A. Weekly.

The Dec. 3 edition of Political Pulse published brief biographies of the 21 freshman Assembly members just elected. What I found interesting is several cite transportation as a key issue that they plan to work on while in Sacramento.

After a long absence I attended the Dec. 13 MTA Board meeting to speak on item 17 (TVs on buses) and item 50 (line 780 implementation). Thankfully both items were sent back to committee for further study. And Mayor Hahn at the meeting modified his proposal about the 780 in recognition of operational realities (i.e. the Board can't pass service changes less than a week before the shake-up). Overall it was a miserable experience that reminded me why I liken attending these meetings to watching paint dry.

Paul Lennon, MTA Director of Intelligence and Emergency Preparedness Management, in the Oct./Nov. issue of Transit California explains the evolution of MTA's policing arrangements thusly: "Before I joined Metro in 1998, the organization was already very security minded, having had its own transit police force for the past 10 to 15 years. As part of an expanding security-philosophy metamorphosis, the transit police unit ultimately was disbanded in 1997, and initially replaced with 5 year contractual agreements with both [Los Angeles Police Department] and [Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department] for law and fare enforcement services, to augment our existing Metro security unit's staff. In 2002, after extensive negotiations with both LAPD and LASD, Metro then awarded the next, new, five-year contract solely to LASD." Man does that gloss over a lot of back room dealing, double-crossing and other dubious aspects of what happened...

Barbara Pike submitted a letter of comment for the record at the Sept. 27 Access Services Board of Directors meeting. While lamenting service Ms. Pike states "I don't care to complain about San Gabriel or Global. I don't use them very often and I understand their skimming and corruption are so criminal that I could risk a pair of cement shoes".

At the same meeting an Independent Group set up in the wake of a rough transition to a new contractor in the West/Central region presented proposed recommendations. One of the members, a Mr. Ajofoyinbo, requested an opportunity to give his alternative view of some of the recommendations. Due to problems with a recording machine he evidently uses to communicate Mr. Ajofoyinbo was unable to present his concerns. He commented per the minutes "The 'so called Independent Group' was set-up exactly in the manner per the Board's request. He added that it provided exactly the kind of parliamentary recommendations that won't actually say anything about what happened with the ASC contract by so narrowly focusing on transition start-ups". Mr. Ajofoyinbo became so agitated at the situation the meeting finally had to be recessed and Mr. Ajofoyinbo escorted out of the meeting.

Has MTA not yet accepted the Gold Line due to outstanding issues pending with the Construction Authority? Evidently this is the state of affairs if I am reading correctly the minutes of the Dec. 9 meeting of the MTA Accessibility Advisory Committee.

Want a shock? When criticizing the vision for bus service contained in the draft plan of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) who does the BayRail Alliance in the Dec. edition of their newsletter Staying on Track cite to provide a contrast? MTA's short range and long range plans. Who would think we in Southern California would ever have something to teach the Bay Area on the topic of public transit improvement?

It was no shock that the state auditor's report on the escalating cost of the replacement of the eastern span of the Bay Bridge put a lot of the blame on Caltrans. This will just increase the finger pointing as everyone squabbles over how the increased cost should be divvied up. The report is on the auditor's website: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa.