What I found interesting about the March 26 transportation funding dog and pony show held by two legislative committees and a city council committee down at the MTA building was that the emphasis was on the immediate economic benefit of transportation spending, i.e. engineering and construction jobs. The long-term economic benefit of improved mobility was given short-shrift. But I guess in an era of term limits long term benefits are totally off the radar screen.

Also very odd was when Senate Transportation Committee chair Kevin Murray asked me after I had made my public comments whether our members understood the intricate money dance going on with transportation trust funds being tapped to shore up the general fund. I noted our members are quite savvy but it isn't reasonable to expect anyone who isn't an insider to be able to track and understand what is happening with transportation funding--most of us lack access and/or the time to delve into such arcania. Which of course is why the folks in Sacramento so far feel fairly safe in siphoning transportation funds to help relieve the general fund crises.

MTA appears to be in a major budget bind. The California Transportation Commission seems leery of the extent the MTA wants to use federal GARVEE bonds as a bridge for the cutback in transportation funding for capital projects. MTA goes so far as to state a Non-GARVEE bond scenario requested by the CTC is submitted "under protest" (item 32, March 25 MTA Board meeting). At the March 1 Budge Workshop the PowerPoint presentation notes several risks that may cause a hole in the budget. These include: ATU health and welfare mediation arbitration smaller than assumed reduction in Workers' Compensation claims ASI service plan calls for $10 million more than planned increased pension costs

And of course the possibility of additional service mandated by the consent decree. And meanwhile a report to the March 18 MTA Operations Committee meeting on the state of the Bus Divisions (item 23) lays out the need in the near future to spend millions in unbudgeted capital expenditures to repair the existing facilities plus yard expansion to accommodate planned and mandated fleet growth. Is this when the agency begins searching under the coach cushions?

mind-numbing idea of the month: "Recommend to the LACMTA Board that they re-instate a Trolleybus Plan similar to that included in the 1992 Thirty-Year Integrated Transportation Plan" (item 2, Advance Technology Vehicle Consortium March 18 agenda)

I first learned of Don Phillips from Ken Ruben. Ken and I are in agreement that Phillips is one of the top reporters on the transportation beat in the U.S., covering it for the Washington Post along with articles for magazines like Trains. Recently Phillips left the Post due to some sort of dispute and has now landed at the New York Times. Ruben recently was kind enough to have the Times e-mail me a link to Phillip's eye-opening March 31 article on problems Union Pacific is having similar (though so far not as severe) to those experienced in the summer of 1996 when UP suffered a meltdown with boxcars sometimes spending weeks on sidings. This caused such havoc in international trade and the agriculture sector that the feds finally stepped in and exercised emergency powers to clear up the backlog. Phillips reports right now every day there are trains spending hours on sidings trying to get in and out of the L.A. Basin. Let us hope this doesn't turn into another meltdown.

I was surprised to learn the Public Policy Institute of California in a recent survey of Los Angeles County residents found a majority of likely voters favored by 52% to 40% the $10 billion bond for the high speed train system linking L.A. and the Bay Area. This majority held up for Democrats (56%) and Republicans (51%) as well as majorities in all demographic groups. Maybe this will encourage some of our local politicians to finally take an interest in the project? The full survey can be seen on PPIC's website: http://www.ppic.org

question of the month: now that OCTA is silencing the "stop requested" announcement can MTA be far behind?

The latest reports are that First Transit has dodged the bullet and is satisfying the Performance Improvement Plan specified by the Foothill Transit Board as an alternative to terminating First Transit's contract for the Arcadia/Irwindale facility. But don't imagine the contractor is taking anything for granted as Foothill Transit's management and board show every sign of continued scrutiny of its performance.

At the March 18 MTA Board Operations Committee meeting Deputy CEO John Catoe announced the Transit Services Bureau has been provided $50,000 to assign deputies on an overtime basis "...to target areas along Wilshire in an effort to reduce traffic collisions, specifically the 720 Rapid Line". This 'Wilshire Project" will last from March 1 to June 30, after which an analysis will be made of its cost/benefit to Metro that will judge the value of continuing this type of program.

happy discovery of the month: UC Berkeley's Institute of Transportation Studies has a Technology Transfer Program that provides training for city, county and other public entity staff on various transportation specialties. For more information: http://www.its.berkeley.edu/techtransfer or (510) 231-5681. I have long felt a connection between cutting edge research and the folks on the front lines was needed and am delighted to learn such a program exists--proof taxes are not always wasted!

After years of acrimony, expensive legal maneuvers and often overheated NIMBY rhetoric the 1.7 mile rail siding in Encinitas NCTD sought to address a choke-point on the coast route has finally opened. And to the surprise of no one the dire warning opponents made have proven untrue.

I was quoted in the April 2 San Gabriel Valley Tribune article "Region's Transit Plan Unveiled". After a decade of seeing one plan follow another I no longer take these sorts of multiyear documents too seriously. Especially once one ventures beyond the first few years they often constitute a collection of trial balloons and wishful thinking. After all in 2-3 years a new plan will be drafted so nothing is set in stone (to pg. 6) (Public and Legislative Affairs, from pg. 5)except the early years of any such plan.

Speaking of the regional plan, Charles Hobbs found this amusing exchange between the Ventura County Transportation Commission and the Southern California Association of Governments in the minutes of the March 2004 VCTC Board meeting as part of VCTC's comments on the draft Regional Transportation Plan prepared by SCAG:

VCTC: The RTP cites the importance of fare payment system coordination but only discusses the MTA'S smart card (in development stage) rather than the GO VENTURA Smartcard which is used by 6 operators in Ventura County for almost 2 years.
SCAG: Comment duly noted. SCAG apologizes for this important omission. Go Ventura Smartcard system will be included in the final RTP.

surprise of the month: ASI Executive Director Alan Cantrell is quoted in the minutes of the Jan. 5 Transportation Professionals Advisory Committee meeting as stating New York Transit is now using limousine service to provide some trips because it is cheaper than paratransit. YEOW!

I'll conclude this month by noting Sunline has finally hired a new General Manager: C. Mikel Oglesby. I don't envy him the task he faces of bringing order to the "Sun" empire of wheeler-dealer former GM Richard Cromwell. Good luck, Mr. Oglesby!