 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ballot StatementBriefly stated AC Transit management and the incumbent did not want the voters to know that:
• importing buses means that your taxes are used to send good manufacturing jobs overseas.
• they are purchasing buses without a competitive procurement process.
• the buses are not tested by a third party.
• most drivers hate the buses.
• they are expanding a very expensive and ineffective hydrogen fuel cell program.Management and my opponent went to great lengths to hide this from voters by challenging portions of my ballot statement in court. AC Transit staff worked many hours on voluminous statements and documents. (Your tax dollars at work!)
And at the court hearing, the judge, Frank Roesch, admitted at the beginning that he was a long time friend of my opponent, Christian Peeples, and made no pretense of acting with fairness and impartiality. Election law dictates a high bar for “false and misleading material,” but he set a very low bar. (Third world justice at work!)!
[Hearing was on 8/29/08, Dept. 31 and the case is Rowen v. MacDonald,
Case No.: RG-08-405653]Why has an agency put in so much effort to influence an election? . Management and my opponent are terrified that I might win because that would be the end of the “special partnership” with the Belgium bus manufacturer, Van Hool. Three out of the seven board members now agree with me so I would tip the scale.
Below is the original ballot statement with what Peeples/AC Transit did not want the public to know in bold & parenthesis:
I am the reform candidate, the candidate for change. The board’s lack of oversight has resulted in misuse of funds and decrease in service. For six years the AC Transit District has had a “special partnership” with a Belgium bus manufacturer, (sending jobs overseas.) These (no-bid, untested) buses (cost more than American buses.) They are (hated by most drivers) and their pedestal seats are treacherous for the elderly and disabled. (While most bus agencies with hydrogen fuel cell programs are cutting back or eliminating them because they are very expensive and ineffective,) the AC Transit District is expanding theirs by purchasing 8 more buses (at $3 million each!) Plus, it is using “creative fund swaps” since these imported buses cannot be bought with federal funds. As a long time transit activist, I do not own a car. I have served as Transportation Chair on the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area Board for six years and was their representative on the Citizens Watchdog Committee for ACTIA, Measure B transportation sales tax administrator, since its inception in 2001. Teamsters Local 853 has endorsed me. Do vote for AC Transit District parcel tax extension and vote for me to assure accountability.
The real deal:(sending jobs overseas.)
Should be pretty obvious that if you are importing buses, you are using taxpayers’ money to send jobs that would be in America, overseas.(no-bid, untested)
The original “bid” in 2001 was tailored for Van Hool, and indeed they were the only respondent. But since that “bid” for 3-door 40-ft buses and 4-door 60-ft buses, they have purchased 2-door 30-ft buses and 3-door 60-ft buses without any pretense of a competitive procurement process. In Jan. 2007, a new 5-year contract was signed with Van Hool without a bid or an RFP. Under that contract they will be importing 2-door 40-ft buses.
No third party has tested these buses. American-built buses have to pass rigorous tests at a FTA facility in Altoona overseen by Penn State U. because they are expected to give at least 12 years of service.(cost more than American buses.)
Of course, it is hard to establish comparative prices since there is no competitive procurement process. But at the 4/4/07 board meeting, the General Manager stated that the new 2-door 40-ft Van Hools would cost $400,000. The APTA (American Public Transit Association) 2007 vehicle Database lists the average cost of a “Standard 40-ft diesel bus (low floor)” as $328,000. Therefore, the Van Hool costs $72,000 more!(hated by most drivers)
In the AC Transit survey that was chaotically administered in one day, the comments by the drivers, which were mostly negative, were omitted. A survey is not needed for anyone who rides the buses frequently and talks to drivers. One out of 20 might say they like them but they will then add quickly, “but passengers hate them.”(While most bus agencies with hydrogen fuel cell programs are cutting back or eliminating them because they are very expensive and ineffective,)
There have been a number of news articles detailing the very high costs of the VTA/Samtrans program. AC Transit’s program consists of three Van Hool fuel cell buses that break down frequently. And the hydrogen for them is produced from natural gas of which a by-product is methane gas, one of the worse greenhouse gases. VTA, Samtrans and Golden Gate are all required by CARB to test fuel cell buses but are trying to off-load their requirements to a third party because of the expense associated with these buses. AC Transit is the third party they are off-loading to.(at $3 million each!)
The Assistant General Manager, Jim Gleich, stated this figure of $3million when we were at a meeting with Kate Miller, Capital Development & Grant Management, on June 6, 2008. It is also the figure for fuel cell buses in the APTA 2007 vehicle Database. Eight fuel cell buses at $3 million each would buy 48 40-ft American diesel electric hybrid buses at $500,000 each, 100% paid for by FTA! But with the “special partnership,” they cannot buy diesel electric hybrid buses because Van Hool doesn’t make them.
If the costs of the buses are actually a mere $2.25 million, only 36 diesel electric hybrid buses could be purchased!* * * * *
Here are the links to two articles in the press:
Statements Stricken from AC Transit Challenger’s Ballot Statement