AC Transit riders took solace in the news on Tuesday that
the agency plans to restore
service that was cut twice this year after a labor arbitrator
settled a contract dispute. Transit advocates worry, however,
about the agency’s long-term solvency and have called on
elected officials to develop significant revenue measures
for funding buses in the East Bay.
The arbitration panel in the AC Transit labor negotiation
reached a decision on a contract between the transit district
and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192, which represents
1,750 of its bus drivers and mechanics, saving the agency
$38 million over three years. The binding decision calls
for increased contributions from the members to their health
and benefit plans, as well as work rule and holiday changes.
AC Transit had cut service in March by 7.8 percent, or $10.3
million in service hours and in October by 7.2 percent, or
$11.4 million in service hours. Fare increases this year
amounted to an increase of 25 cents per trip for local riders
and $10 for the price of a monthly pass. Transbay riders
have been paying an increase of 50 cents per trip and $16.50
for a monthly pass. Youth, senior and disabled riders saw
a hike of 15 cents per local trip and 30 cents for Transbay
trips.
Because of the arbitration decision, AC Transit also expects
to halt an additional round of cuts approved to go into effect
in December, including the elimination of weekend service
on lines affecting nearly 25,000 riders, what transit advocates
and church groups lamented as a “death spiral.”
“There are no winners or losers in this arbitration,” AC
Transit Interim General Manager Mary King said in a statement.
“Both AC Transit and the union focused on what is best for
the riders and taxpayers of this district and what is in
the long-term interest of maintaining public transit for
the people we serve.”
Though transit advocates were pleased with the impact on
service in the near term, they lamented the agency’s inability
to improve service above restoring recent cuts and worried
similar budget deficits would return imminently.
A coalition of community groups and church leaders rallied
this week to kick off a campaign calling on elected officials
throughout Alameda County to fight for increased operating
funds for AC Transit with the same vigor they stumped for
capital projects like the Oakland Airport Connector. Many
of the groups in the coalition, like Urban Habitat, Public
Advocates and Genesis, fought
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
BART over spending federal stimulus money on the OAC. They’ve
created a pledge they hope to get Alameda County elected
officials to sign, promising to do everything in their power
to improve AC Transit’s financial situation.
“We don’t see [labor concessions] as a long-term sustainable
solution to AC Transit’s funding problems,” said Bob Allen,
transportation policy director for Urban Habitat. “It gets
us out of the latest round of really serious cuts. It doesn’t
get us off the trend that we have going forward, with MTC,
the state and the federal government not providing adequate
operations funding. This is a short term solution that is
balanced on the backs of people who work, push the system
forward, put service on the street.”
Allen said the MTC had funded “mega-projects” throughout
the region to the detriment of keeping buses running. “We
want to see the same kind of effort to get funding to put
service on the street, to reach our climate change goals,
to get kids to school and get people to work.”
At the rally, the coalition got commitments from Assemblymember
Nancy Skinner, Alameda County Supervisors Keith Carson and
Nate Miley, as well as Gayle McLaughlin, the newly elected
Mayor of Richmond.
“We don’t need to keep widening our highways. We realize
that only impacts public health with more pollution and only
drags us further into the global warming crisis we’re in,”
said McLaughlin, to loud applause.”We need it understood
that mass transit is the wave of the future, is for the needs
of our community and is something that is just. I love the
words ‘transportation justice.’ Let’s keep pulling together
for transportation justice.”
McLaughlin talked of her
own city’s general plan, but said they couldn’t achieve
the benefits of smart growth, emissions reductions and
improved health without AC Transit.
“What good is it to have transit-oriented development if
you don’t have the transit?” she asked.
Mashasin Abdul Salaam, co-chair of the Genesis Transportation
Task Force, applauded the politicians who stepped up
to sign the pledge, which reads simply, “I stand in solidarity
with AC Transit’s ridership. I pledge to do anything
within my power to fight continuing service cuts and
fare increases. I will continually endeavor to restore
AC Transit’s service to its pre-2010 levels and to fight
against the gradual diversion of AC Transit’s resources.”
Salaam and the coalition called out the political leadership
who were ardent
supporters of the OAC, what Salaam called “the skytram,”
saying they had not done enough to adequately fund AC
Transit. The politicians included Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums,
Oakland Councilmember Larry Reid, Alameda County Supervisor
and MTC Chairman Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Transportation
Commission Chair Mark Green, State Assemblyman Sandre
Swanson, U.S. Representative Barbara Lee and U.S. Senator
Dianne Feinstein.
Urban Habitat’s Allen called it the “optics” of press
events for new capital construction versus job preservation.
“I think a lot of people feel it doesn’t look as good
to stand beside a bus driver in the morning and say this
bus driver wasn’t cut. Preserving jobs is not looked
at the same as ‘creating’ them,” said Allen.
“It’s a problem of how people operate politically, what
things feed what constituencies and ultimately is there
enough power in the communities that are affected that
they’ll stand up,” said Allen. “I think political officials
look at those capital projects as serving people who
vote more. If they’re putting up a project that gets
people to work but also attracts voters, maybe more middle
class voters, more affluent voters, more white voters
who tend to come out, that plays better to those people,
in their minds.”
